an interesting tangent here is the advancements in AI, and biotechnology. How far away are we from being able to download ourselves into a computer and replace all the messy bits of us with replacement parts. Would this new thing that sort of looks like us ( i would go for a few modifications) and thinks like us, be us. They cyber you is not that far away. Maybe the more important question is should we ?

I get the impression it is a long way off in everyday terms. We don't even understand how the neuron works. But I'd think we'd have a good shot at it given billions of years of development time.

As to whether we should, we have no evidence that God (if he exists) has taken care of eternal life for us. God could be like Crom on his mountain (from Conan the Barbarian); expecting us to take care of matters ourselves.

I think we are a lot closer than a billion years. I understand thats not important to the question of should but there seems to be some pretty viable possibilities in a hundred years, even decades according to some. Rather than the mind transfer cyborg, cellular regeneration and gene manipulation are at the forefront. The aging process can be slowed or stopped, even reversed some studies indicate.
As to the question of “should”, I dont think it matters. Its going to happen, like with all technology someone, somewhere will be doing it. You might as well resign yourself to its existence and make sure its an option fir everyone rather than something for lawbreakers, the rich or even just governments/cultures/countries that are less queesy about it.

Biotech-based solutions seem to offer somewhat extended rather than indefinitely extended longevity we might get from a computer-based solution. So there would still be a need for a long term solution.

Ive heard both, biotech to slow and stop, the idea of the former being the extension allows you to reach the biotech level to stop it altogether.

Would you sign up to the company? — Devans99

Well, I have no desire to live forever, even if it were possible, which it is not (he said smugly).

On the other hand, I have a fondness for quixotic efforts. I've even been known to contribute to the Philosophy Forum.

I suppose that would depend on the amount of the contribution, and the likelihood of it succeeding. Are we going to be doing a Pascal's wager thing?

It is sort of like Pascal's Wager. But unlike believing in God, it costs real money out of your pocket.

On the likelihood of it succeeding, using guesstimate numbers:

Chances eternalism correct 50%
Chances time travel possible 50%
Chances human-computer interfaces developable 50%

So that's a 50%*50%*50%=12.5% chance of success against a fixed monthly contribution.