For life to have a meaning (other than the personal which no one can nay say another's decision), there would have had to be a creator of life who gave it an agenda. There is no agenda on an individual basis. Overall, to continue perhaps, but on a personal level there is no meaning other than the one you find for yourself.
Interestingly, if you want greater happiness then you want longer lives. Surveys tend to show that older people are happier. Another reason quality of life beyond the basic necessities doesn't really matter is that you will always have those who have very nice lives bitching to beat the band about something they yet don't possess that has become a necessity for them.
Some is, some isn't. Forest in the northern hemisphere are rebounding, with some larger than ever.
You just let you own bias show. Reproducing most *is* being the fittest, special longevity wise. And, recessive traits aren't bad in and of themselves. Otherwise, bulls wouldn't have those recessive horns.
Having regenerative cells doesn't mean immortality for a lobster. Like telemeres, there could be a finite limit to the number of times that can happen. Wiki answers isn't the place to search for factual information. Nor should you attribute that strange reversal to a larval stage (only seen in the lab and only in one species) to being a general trait. Jellyfish are typically short lived.
Short - your argument doesn't hold.
Short - your argument doesn't hold.
I have never read more people's thoughts on the hopes that immortality through uplifting one's conscious or 'sour' or 'mind' or such into a computer as I have in the tech community. No greater percentage of any cross section I've ever been exposed to actually believed it was imminently possible and doable and were simultaneously ignorant of basic biology. I've even argued with them right here. Even religious people put up a big caveat of "Well, you're dead" first to excuse it. The first believe it with a fervor.
The original statement was "death is wrong". That's a moral judgement imposed on a natural system. His correcting it by pointing out it's built in and so isn't a breakdown of the system (the only real possible application of the word 'wrong' to life in general) isn't at all an argument, just a rejection of the original flawed reasoning. And, to get pedantic, since the system being debated is nature itself, there's nothing wrong with using nature as it works to support your rejection.
Your footnote is diametrically opposite of reality. In feudalism, not only was everything - literally everything - owned by the nobility and ultimately the king, but even the people were owned. Peasants had virtually no leisure time and didn't own a single thing that couldn't simply be taken by the nobility for whatever reason. This included the sweet young thing you were planning on marrying. They got to screw her first if they wanted. And they got to hang you if you uttered an objection. You would LONG for the inequity of a house or apartment with TV, car and fridge with someone living in a big friggin' mansion instead of someone living in a fabulous castle and you in a hut with not a damned thing.
Left-wing ideology seems to be doing a fine job of screwing things over too, you know.
The point is others with far more in depth knowledge are already doing this. NASA's attempt is regurgitation. They have a specialty, do that, not else. Leave else for those with experience in those areas. NASA is not a do-all.
Perhaps you could explain how you got to your comment on his ideology from what he said. Should be interesting.
Even Asimov wrote one of the series to show that you cannot predict it all. Mule.
Retraction, it doesn't require as much as I believed.
Landing a 777 takes a significant airstrip. Really significant. Once there, it's not simply a taxi to some secluded spot. If your scenario is true, the plane should be visible by satellite.
Extract the directionality towards a supernatural being and yes, they are much the same.