That's not inductive reasoning. Induction is like when you see the sun rise in the east every morning and conclude that the sun always rises in the east. — frank

OR, you might conclude that the sun does not rise at all, it is the Earth that turns.

I don't think I have misread what you typed at all, but you seem to want to insist I have, which is fine.
I don't think your future doomster projections for the vast majority of human biomorphs, is as strongly evidenced as you claim.
The fossil evidence on Earth, accumulating, to a finding that 99% of all species on Earth are extinct, could be thought of as a similar stat to the projection that, out of 8 planets in the solar system only 1 has life at all and I would warrant that 90%+ of all planets in the universe contain no life. Humans are perhaps, just lucky or are just able to survive more that 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet. I think we will continue to survive and the future for the humans alive today will not be any more dystopian that it has been in the past. The human experience will continue to improve.
But my projection has no strong evidence either and is just my optimism, which I obviously prefer to your pessimism.

E.g. do you think universeness's opposition to anti-natalism comes from logic? His baloney gestures to logic are just a cover to support his desire that ideas he doesn't agree with should be censored. — T Clark

You are just typing inaccurate trash about me TC. I seem to occupy much more space in your head than you do in mine. If you want to try to counter my arguments then do so directly, rather than this poor attempt by proxy. I think you should look again at the relationship individuals have between their beliefs and their application of logic. By doing so, you may eventually escape your dalliances and irrational defence of theists. Do the words in the offering below hold an important place in your heart TC?

:rofl: Hey, wait a minute! 'Arguments FOR antinatalism,' is a wee bit too much of a swing towards supporting the topic rather than denigrating it. There are far more comments in that thread against than for. Much better to call it 'All antinatalism viewpoints here!' BALANCE!

I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like “Antinatalist Arguments” or some other benign title. — Pinprick

Good idea, change the 'Life sucks' thread into 'All antinatalism discussions here:'
Edit: I see I am playing catch up with @Baden again. Yeah, I know, read all the latest posts in a thread before responding to any of them. :blush:
Edit2: At least I can spell proper! He keeps typing evangelising when we all know its proper spellin is evanHELLising. Get a grip Irishman!

Exactly!

the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses. — Tom Storm

I would say this viewpoint would have a lot of support, especially if you ask people for a quick knee jerk response to a question like 'how's life for you?' just after they have watched news at 10 on the BBC.
WE ALL must take responsibility for such knee-jerk negative life viewpoints.
Here is one suggestion Tom. What if all news programs by law had to report in a more balanced way. The bad news and the good news, 50/50. Good news is rarely reported but is going on all over the planet every day.
Why was there not a news story such as 'The British Political system enables the removal of an incompetent prime minister within one month of their election!' I am not a fan of the current UK political system but the fact that it meant a Liz Truss approach would not survive scrutiny is good news!
Most people react rather than act. They are like little newborn birds with brain rather than mouth wide open hoping for some stimuli rather than food, to be fed to them. Apathy causes many to become like this when they are offered little hope. BUT there is plenty of hope out there. We are all responsible because we won't get out our armchairs and fight to change things. We all made this bed we live in, only we can wake out of our slumber and see who really runs everything. When we all agree who the enemy truly is, then we can smash them to smithereens, permanently!
This would remove a lot of the 'chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy,' you suggest is so currently prominent. Who has all the cream right now, all the advantages, control over all the Earth's resources Tom? Who? and how come?

Yes, insofar as engineering radical life extension (i.e. immorbidity), as I call it, is "transhumanist". This will only be available, I suspect (for the Malthusian implications I've mentioned), to a very minute fraction of the global population – mostly financial and technoscientific elites and their families – who will then (have to) migrate to orbital habitats, Moon & Mars colonies, etc and progressively adapt themselves through further modes of engineering to living permanently (or existing post-biologically) in space. This us what I mean by "extra-terrestrial" (i.e. not on Earth). — 180 Proof

Yeah, I was moving towards this understanding of you typings when I typed:

Your view of the future for humans, as we understand them/us now becomes clearer to me.
I would label you 'a bit of a doomster,' and someone who has let his exasperation and frustration with his own species, dilute and perhaps even dismiss the imo, fantastic and incredible achievements of that species. That fact that you are compelled to call for the protection and preservation of certain 'singular works of excellence,' suggests some cracks in your disdain of your own species. — universeness

So perhaps we would both benefit from paying a little more attention to what the other types, before responding or editing.

As I accurately suggested, your vision of the future for our species is extinction for most, dystopian for most that are left on the Earth and an elite small group of survivors who live extraterrestially.
You must have found the following film quite in line with your depressing predictions:

If we don't live to see the destination, we have no right to be proud of the seeds we plant — TiredThinker

I would suggest that as contributors (hopefully benevolent contributions), we do have the right to maintain positive 'hope' for the future of our species, based on the 'seeds we plant.' Perhaps a sense of pride is warranted as well. It's a matter for the individuals involved, in the same way that it's a matter for you, to feel that such hope for the future and pride in the achievements of our current and ancestral population is not warranted.

I want to know the value of our own biological identity and would prefer to think it evolves instead of breaks then ceases. — TiredThinker

It confirms your individuality, your uniqueness. Carl Sagan said 'The size of the universe is beyond human understanding.' Yet in all that vastness of time and space, YOU are unique.
We are still physically evolving, and our current and future science and tech will change us in ways that the label transhuman hardly covers. We have more control over death now than we have ever had in the past due to our current level of health care and medical intervention. This improves with each new med tech breakthrough. This control over death and how and when we die, will eventually become as close to 100% as we can make it. Death will become almost 100% your choice.
It's just unfortunate that you and I were probably born too early in the story to have that choice.
So, enjoy it while you can! The alt is to live life at or closer to a curse, this will merely increase your metal suffering, and your time will still pass, regardless of how you choose to live or die.

85! and still got pep, there are many colours of vibrant in a good human heart!

He still has not confirmed that my analysis was correct!
Perhaps he is too busy creating even more enigmatic offerings with other strange (actually perfectly acceptable) words, my brain seems to have problems recognising, such as 'stapling' :scream:

That cartoon I get, but still don't know why the shirtless woman had her hair straight up. — Hanover

Is it not traditional that your hair stands on end when you are terrified by what you are looking at or is that viewpoint rather pessimistic?

The more important issue is, did you get @Baden's cartoon before me?

Could not agree with you more, then the proponents try to enhance the topic or try to defibrillate the topic, by conflating their irrational posits with propositional logic or some bizarre perceptions of some ideal, absolutely pure form of human morality when no such pure form exists.

:lol: Spelling is not one of my strongest skills. I have no idea why my brain did not connect to stapling paper! Frame two is very clever but I now don't get frame 3 even more.
They have to get the vote out so they have to create pamphlets/flyers etc. So fish asks other fish "how's your stapling", other fish responds with 'I knew this would happen.'
The issue is around pessimism so ........
OH! I think the penny just dropped! is the message that expecting fish to staple is as ridiculous as expecting sentient lifeforms to vote for their own extinction!!!!!
Am I correct?

I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with.
But as @Baden has already stated, the moderators action was about the attempt to flood the main debate area with anti-life threads, or at least over-represent the topic of anti-life in the main debate area. It was not an action to prevent the topic itself being debated.

third frame? 'How's your what? stapling? I googled it and got:
Stapling means your existing super account automatically follows you when you change jobs.
???

:up: 200 pulpits to evanhellise on one topic in expecting a little too much.

I personally think Schopenhauer1 has been treated very fairly by the moderators. Are two pulpits not enough for one topic?

:up:

This instinct has evolved so that now, being at the present is not a matter of long term perseverance, attempting to fight the futile battle of being solid as a rock and preventing oneself from being forced into the past, it is a matter of doing something productive for the sake of others, during one's brief time at the present. That's what we see in the beauty of the flower. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is an excellent paragraph! :clap: :flower:

"Dystopian"? I suppose, but only from a certain point of view. — 180 Proof

Yes, and with all due respect, I would suggest that certain point of view, is yours.
Your comparator choice of a pyramid scheme to describe human history from the ancients to the modern day is ok by me, although it trivialises the main events a little too much for my taste.
The bloody road caused by those at the top of your pyramid scheme is unlike the damage caused by any actual pyramid scheme I have read about. I prefer your

built out of 10,000 years of human bones. — 180 Proof

The future, my friend, seems to me Posthuman, not human – extraterrestrial, not terrestrial – or our extinction. — 180 Proof

I am trying to interpret you use of 'posthuman,' extraterrestial and 'or our extinction.'
So you suggest our future is one of extinction, due to extraterrestials or our own actions and the Earth will then belong to extraterrestials? Is my interpretation correct? OR are you suggesting a future where transhumanism produces that which in no way can be compared with what we now consider human?

You're spinning self-flattering, cotton candy, cartoon daydreams, universeness, and you're welcome to them. — 180 Proof

A harsh accusation mr proof and a cynical, incorrect summation of my intent and motivation.
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one.

I have no children of my own, therefore no grandchildren either. Thus, I have no skin the game of "the future". — 180 Proof

Same for me but I have nieces, nephews etc, don't you? and is that not skin enough in the 'game'?
I also don't think you have to be blood related to every human whose future you care about.
You do have a responsibility to care for the future of your species imo.

I have no children of my own, therefore no grandchildren either. Thus, I have no skin the game of "the future". Only the best, singular works of excellence from the pasts of all extant human cultures do I have some small hope will be saved and preserved in as many digital media as can be engineered for the potential enrichment (or amusement) of the Posthuman immortals who might survive us and struggle in their own incomprehensible ways to understand us much more deeply and thoroughly than we human mortals can understand ourselves, and, in this hermeneutic and critical fashion, glean insights – from one old (soon-to-be-extinct) metacognitive species to another ever-renewable metacognitive species – which may help them avoid destroying themselves inadvertantly. — 180 Proof

Your view of the future for humans, as we understand them/us now becomes clearer to me.
I would label you 'a bit of a doomster,' and someone who has let his exasperation and frustration with his own species, dilute and perhaps even dismiss the imo, fantastic and incredible achievements of that species. That fact that you are compelled to call for the protection and preservation of certain 'singular works of excellence,' suggests some cracks in your disdain of your own species.

The stars are for our immortals and intelligent machines but not for us mortals who might engineer them some decades or century soon. The prospect of 'radical life extension' (that I/we might have access to one day)^^ is attractive to me mostly so that I could live at least long enough to witness the global collapse of the human pyramid in the wake of its Posthuman summit finally separating from Earth as it rises and falls endlessly into the Milky Way. — 180 Proof

Yep, definitely a doomster :smile: and you would take some personal satisfaction in witnessing your own species firmly on its path to its own destruction. Is it all about hoping the timing of events works out perfectly for you?
Live long enough to confirm that most of the humans alive today will cause their own destruction but a small number will survive to eventually create a very robust future transhuman/posthuman community, that will be so superior to us that they will be worthy of inheriting the Earth and the right to become spacefarers.
You wear your 'we are doomed' conclusion, big and bright and with contented conviction Mr Proof.
But you have no Proof that its valid. Us in the "spinning self-flattering, cotton candy, cartoon daydreams" group may frustrate your wishes.

Nah, I am not disappointed at all. I am surprised because I consider you a normal/eclectic member in this site. I mean, I see you as a peaceful person not someone who wants to complain with the mods through PM. — javi2541997

I try to judge each situation wisely as each arises. If a thug in a pub, winds up me or they threaten someone in the company I am in. I have two choices. I can verbally or physically intervene myself with the thug or I can protest/report the situation to those who run the pub or phone the police.
Which option I choose will be down to my own thoughts about the situation in accordance with my own viewpoints/emotions/priorities/notions of the role of law and authority.
I am peaceful but not pacifist, when threat is in my face. I am not non-violent or non-confrontational.
I am eclectic in many ways, but I also have my 'main drivers.'

There are some members who like to debate about pessimism and it is ok. — javi2541997

I agree, if the discussion is about pessimism and its phenomena as a human mind-set but not if it's just being used to camouflage antinatalism and it was already stated as TPF policy that all antinatalism threads would be placed under the 'life sucks' thread. That's where the antinatalism podium exists, no matter how some members try to camouflage it. I for one support that policy.

I never thought it would be you the architect of lump the threads together :eyes: — javi2541997

You words relay a sense that you are disappointed in me Javi. This bites a little, considering your recent compliment towards me in another thread. I hope your disappointment does not run too deep.

I see what you mean but it could be negative because some users would not have motivation if their OP end up in a generic thread. For example: imagine you start an interesting thread about the UK elections and it ends up at "Brexit thread" or "Currently PM thread" etc... — javi2541997

Not at all, I would be absolutely fine with that. Almost every discussion site on the internet uses generic titles/categories, including TPF. When you post a new thread, you are asked to choose one of the catergories from the drop down list TPF provides. This list is, of-course, finite so it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the moderators would do some 'defragging,' on the site and merge common threads under one title. Antinatalism is one topic and should be discussed under one title despite the attempts of some members to spread it all over the site by stealth, in an attempt to make it seem like a more dominant issue.

What do you mean by transhumanism? — TiredThinker

I favour the definition as: The belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.

If you ask age researchers, at best they think they "might" be able to stop human aging in 20 years, by then I might be dead. — TiredThinker

Wow! where did you get that from? within 20 years? No chance! But I hope you are correct, that would be a serious gamechanger and I would love to be alive when it happened.
I was not suggesting that there is much chance of significant increased lifespan for you or I, I was asking you if that future possibility for our species filled you with any positivity or is your concern regarding your own termination all that matters. If it is, then perhaps that's a reason for the general negativity of your OP here. I see myself as a part of the story of our species, but it is the totality of the story that matters to me most, much much more than the brief part I played in it. That thought makes me very contented.
We all prioritise in many different ways. Even your handle/identifier 'tiredthinker' seems pessimistic whereas mine, 'universeness,' seems more positive (perhaps only to me!).

There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications. — Bartricks

Yes, there was. The philosophical justification is that your philosophy is that life sucks and you have various ways to camouflage that base viewpoint. You think you can fool everyone else that you are living a perfectly happy, joyous life, but despite this optimistic life you lead, YOU have personally analysed the data regarding human suffering in a purely pragmatic way and YOU have declared the irrefutable conclusion that it would be better if all lifeforms that can experience any form of suffering, should make itself extinct. You have dressed this up in conflated propositional logic clothing but your attempt to convince others that you are on sound logical grounds and all of philosophy would, should and MUST support you or else they just don't know any valid philosophy, is proving to be quite unsuccessful.
But as far as I can interpret TPF guidelines, the moderators decided to put all antinatalism discussions under this single thread 'Life Sucks'. I simply requested that they follow through on this policy.

Whispering in his ear like wormtongue over here — schopenhauer1

Wasn't Banno, was me. I sent a PM asking about the TPF policy to keep all anti-life threads within one thread. Seems they agreed that was their policy. You should be happy they are being level handed.
You can post all your pessimistic musings here, what's wrong with that?

Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place. — Sir2u

But at least, it's all in one place, and you can avoid the smell altogether, if you don't want to help combat it. But if it's allowed to be spread all over the place, then that smell is going to be wherever you go!

Ok!

I don't think the survival of our species depends in any way on "the human race ... globally united". In fact, I'd bet against it. — 180 Proof

Fair enough, but would you agree that since we emerged from the wilds, small groups of humans have merged into larger communities of humans and we are now at nation sized groups, with entities like the European economic union being formed and other such economic unions growing all over the planet. Based on that evidence alone, it seems to me that global union will happen at some point in the future.

when 'life extension' engineeriing really takes off, Malthusian population pressures will go critical and policies of strategic gigacide will need to be implemented. — 180 Proof

Had to visit wiki, to read about Thomas Robert Malthus. I had never heard of him:
Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off. This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe (also known as a Malthusian trap, population trap, Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian spectre, or Malthusian crunch) occurs when population growth outpaces agricultural production, causing famine or war, resulting in poverty and depopulation. Such a catastrophe inevitably has the effect of forcing the population (quite rapidly, due to the potential severity and unpredictable results of the mitigating factors involved, as compared to the relatively slow time scales and well-understood processes governing unchecked growth or growth affected by preventive checks) to "correct" back to a lower, more easily sustainable level.[1][2] Malthusianism has been linked to a variety of political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.

Any threat of exponential population growth can be controlled through education/information campaigns which explain the problems to the current population. Malthus knew nothing about how fast information can be disseminated today, he also new nothing about the advances now being made on food production techniques such as vertical farming etc. I think life extension will cause people to have fewer children, not more. I had to look up gigacide as well but my guestimate was akin to what 'bing' came back with: Gigacide means a mass murder of a billion or more people.
Removing lives through mass murder has proven to be a very unwise action to take by those who have tried it in the past. You are looking through the mirror rather darkly.

The alternative, however, may be that 'radical life extension' will only be available to people who work and live permanently in space (e.g. orbital habitats, moon stations, planet colonies, deep space travel, etc) – AI-automated fleet of "worldships" populated by a total of a million? half-million? hundreds of thousands or less? "Post-human" immortals – leaving billions of mortals behind on a flooded, toxic, storm-ravaged, burning Earth. — 180 Proof

:smile: Reads like, If you were a future career advisor for the children of the future, you would push them to choose a career in space exploration and development. Are your thoughts about the future of the human race mainly dystopian?

'The species imperative' does not require most of the current populations of the species (or their descendents) to survive, only enough of us to carry our DNA and cultural artifacts forward through the coming millennia and epochs. AI-automation + space habitation + immortality engineering are what h. sapiens' "Post-human" future looks like to me ...

Extinction or apotheosis? — 180 Proof

But the universe is so vast! We could assign every one of our current global population of humans at under 8 billion, responsibility/stewardship/ownership of their own solar system, just within our own milkyway (ok, I know there is a slight tech hitch of access but ..... given another million years or so of science....) and that would be no more than a drop in the cosmic bucket of available solar systems.
From the standpoint of the size of the universe, each human being is incredibly rare and precious.
Again, given the size of the universe and the fact that our current science suggests there is no way, now or in the future that creatures such as us will ever access the vast majority of it, I can't understand why you would think that apotheosis is even in our line of sight. Our transhumanism would have to reach the functionality of a fabled character such as Thor, to bring such possibilities into our reality, and goodness knows what discovery we would need and tech we would require to become able to even access our local galactic group and become an intergalactic species. But the pursuit of such sounds fun to me. I wish I were born, when such a pursuit was happening.

Macbeth is an exact arrangement of words, but the idea of Macbeth is political in nature. — introbert

A view contrary to the common view is that just as the tree is a pre-existent part of the landscape, Macbeth is a pre-existent part of the mindscape. Shakespeare saw the play in the mindscape and recorded it. (This is not to diminish Shakespeare’s accomplishment no more than we diminish the accomplishment of finding gold in the ground, or finding a child lost in a forest.) — Art48

But Shakespeare's Macbeth is based on a real historical character. Most of Shakespeare's characters are. His stories are informed by actual historical events, so they are 'interpretations' and embellishments and are based on drammatic license. I dont see how such connects to concepts of 'pre-existent thought.'

From wiki:
Macbeth (Medieval Gaelic: Mac Bethad mac Findlaích; Modern Scottish Gaelic: MacBheatha mac Fhionnlaigh; English: Macbeth son of Findlay, nicknamed Rí Deircc, "the Red King"; c. 1005 – 15 August 1057) was King of Scots from 1040 until his death. He ruled over the Kingdom of Alba, which covered only a portion of present-day Scotland.

Now? I just sit here and wait to see what happens - in the world and in myself. — T Clark

Would you not be interested in getting involved in volunteer work? If you are not already involved.
If I had the resources, I would love to open, run and fund a 'place,' were some in need could go and get some help from me. It wouldn't matter if it was a place near a village or township of struggling people or a local foodbank or .........?
I do intend to spend a lot more of my time doing volunteer work when I turn 60, so 2 years from now.

Same here. I want to live long enough to quit life on my own terms and I desire nothing more from living. Not "forever", I agree, but as long as it's psychologically possible for me to go on. — 180 Proof

The goal seems common amongst most of us then. Only science can provide the tech needed to offer such personal control and choice when it comes to death, and provide access to the interplanetary/interstellar space and resources needed. So, the human race must ultimately, globally unite in such common cause or go the way of the dinosaurs. Do you see any other way forwards towards what I think MUST BE the natural direction of our species almost as a natural imperative of all sentient life.

What I mean is: while I am aware about my limitations on my life and what the future holds, I am not capable of experiencing the same virtue in your awareness or concious. You have to live it yourself in your own as well as I do so. — javi2541997

I accept what you have typed in the quote above Javi, but you are often not the best judge of your own 'limitations,' imo. The motivations or inspirations from or by others can often result in yourself taking actions which produce positive results that can completely surprise you and make you form thoughts such as 'Oh my goodness, I should have got involved in this or I should have done this, years ago!'

I wish the law makers listen to your ideas and opinions because they are so brainy. — javi2541997

:smile: Thanks Javi! You are a good heart!

I also think that political parties are not longer useful — javi2541997

They are now just entrenched enemies and people vote for a 'side' rather than a person.
I think we need a permanent 'no overall majority,' and a government who start as complete 'independents,' who MUST work together to find common ground and concentrate on what would most benefit those they represent. Governance should have nothing to do with any concept such as 'party loyalty.'

So, just as a first attempt to introduce a 'positive' to what seems to me a rather negative OP.
Do the potentials/possibilities offered by future/projected transhumanism, offer you any 'excitement' or new 'vision?' If transhumanism offered, you a much more robust body and a longer lifespan? Would you participate?
Let's say tech moved to a point where humans could be offered an organic implant that allowed them to live under water as well as on land? Would that interest you?

@Mikie
:clap: :clap: :up:

I was a lot more politically active in the past than I am now BUT I still do ante up and kick in when the issue is important enough. I decided a while ago that I am now against party politics. I no longer advocate for a parliament/government made up of political parties. We need to send local representatives from constituencies based on their viewpoints and not party-political mandates.
So, I could no longer be a member of a political party.

I completely lost every hope in my life. This is why I see the main subject of this topic as individual. — javi2541997

If you want to keep fight for a cause you have to be aware with the fact that it is impossible to do it alone — javi2541997

These two quotes create your 'crunch' when they try to balance, it all falls down and frustrates.

when you are surrounded by people some members tend to betray you... another fact of why is better to pass the by as a lone wolf. — javi2541997

I continue to be let down by some and I am very grateful, and I much admire the examples and demonstrated trustworthiness I continue to witness in others.
You cannot change much as a lone wolf, you do need others.
A very powerful lone wolf can be a very dangerous entity, unless it is completely benevolent.
Sometimes a benevolent powerful warrior for your cause can 'transition' to a nefarious pig, so I understand your exasperation, but there are too many in need to let personal betrayal, destroy your fight for your cause. THERE ARE TOO MANY IN NEED.

I think this examples fits the concept of transitoriness so well. The aesthetic concept of a flourished flower is ephemeral. — javi2541997

You use transitory here in the sense of a brief but notable existence.
How often has this idea been dramatised since classical times?
'Your life shall be short, but it shall be glorious, and you will be remembered forever.'
Many people are attracted to such but for me, it's a bit too much about self, I favour a different balance to that suggested by the glorious, beautiful, brief existence of a flower.

There's a lot of talk these days about the end of death through medical technology or artificial intelligence. That seems like a bleak prospect. I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever. — T Clark

But trust me on the fact that we will end up getting tired of "perpetual" flowers in our garden for seeing them everyday in our lives. — javi2541997

I am some variant of these viewpoints. I do get bored with 'routine' or that which first impresses but eventually becomes routine. I am attracted to increased lifespan but there has to be a balance of quality as well or a least a good future prospect of quality.

Increased lifespan would allow me to 'fight for my cause' a lot longer and I am very attracted to that.
I am also very attracted to the further 'choice' increased longevity would offer, including increased choice and control over when and how my life will terminate.

There are so many more adventures I would like to go on as well.

My balance is somewhere between that which I consider my responsibility/imperative/reason/main cause or purpose etc and that which I consider my ways to personally celebrate being alive.
variety/transition/change/choice/will are all very important to me, as is legacy/continuance/durability etc

Otherwise, everything would be worthless and paradoxically, the things which are perpetual are at the same time the ones we are tired of the most. — javi2541997

I know of no example that I can apply the word 'perpetual' to, as it suggests 'never ending and never changing.' I can't even apply it to the posit of a never-ending cyclical universe as that would fail on the part of the definition which insists on 'no change'. For me, perpetual is a word which is about as useful as the concept of an omni. I consider such concepts almost useless, yet I cannot deny such concepts

Interesting. Then, you consider that life significance depends on time and transitoriness. — javi2541997

As foundational properties of being alive, yes but there is also what has mutated from those fundamentals such as self-awareness, intent/will/choice. All these aspects of the human experience is what is available to you from birth.
All naturals, no supernatural's needed or available. With these properties/potentials, such a vast number of life paths/experiences become available and confirmed by mathematical permutation.
The number of possibilities, which seem to me, available to an individual human, seems immense and very exciting BUT there is also irrefutable evidence that so many restrictions/impositions can restrict and reduce the choices available to so many individuals to as low a number as zero.
These restrictions/impositions can be imposed by the intent of others/yourself/happenstance etc.
This to me, suggests that only human will and human legacy, can change this and frustrate the malintent of others, help individuals combat their inner doubts/primal fears, and defend yourself and others against happenstance that would be detrimental to living a fulfilling human life, within the span that medical technology can provide.
This is transitory, transformation through human will, intent, ability to change, ability to affect.