In an earlier post here I made it clear what I think is one of the biggest problem of the current, emerging discussion around open lifespan or healthy lifespan extension. It is labelling/branding open lifespan, healthy lifespan extension as ‘immortality’, or using the term ‘forever’ or ‘eternal’. Just because we do not know the bounds of a project it does not mean it is boundless.
Here I start to make a list (in descending chronological order) of such a misuse of these terms and eventual misleading of thought to have some reference material available. Besides having a handy reference available, my real intention is to make the people behind these pieces reconsider their thinking (or their headlines) about the opportunity of living much longer and healthier lives. I want everybody to stick around as long as they wish and I want everybody to be able to do so without anybody else blocking these attempts. 🙂 Life is not be messed with.
I will focus on mainstream media outlets, newspapers I occasionally read, so my already existing collection, but I welcome other examples as well and will include them here.
2018/10/22:Â Â Who Wants to Live Forever?
Comic by Andy Warner.
2018/08/31: New Scientist Live: can you live forever and would you want to?
Published in: New Scientist
Comment: don’t need extra citation as confusion is stated in the title.
2018/08/18:  Life Is Short. That’s the Point.
Published in: New York Times
Explicit citation showing the confusion:
‘The irony, however, is that the same Silicon Valley culture that produces these gadgets seems to be obsessed with living forever.’
Beneath the surface of this quest for eternal life seems to be an unwillingness on the part of its proponents to imagine the world without themselves in it.
2018/07/08:Â Memo to those seeking to live for ever: eternal life would be deathly dull
Published in: The Guardian
Take this seriously and you can see how the idea of living for ever is incoherent.