>>143741281) An unbroken historico-sociological chain of intra-species competition prevents it. """Immortality""" itself is a kind of resource and if I could push a button to render the human species extinct with the expectation that not a single individual would ever achieve ""biological immortality", however slight, with all the precarious supply chains that that entails, I would do so with delight.
2) Science is itself a form of metaphysical cuckoldry. Here Sparky, you love "figuring things out" so much, let me pay you a little bit of money so that I can reach mortal escape velocity V 1.0. Along with all my security, my goons, the rest of it. I don't even need to be a crab in the bucket. Nature itself is the bucket, and happily cuts these fucks down in the long view, regardless of our local vantage. One of the things that makes existence with other subjects bearable is knowing that there is metaphysical equality. """Immortality""" would begin to change that, and that is why everyone who even makes a feint in that direction ought to be killed ahead of time, as a matter of preference. But either way, it makes no difference: nature balances her books.
What is intolerable is that any improvement should happen at all. Any improvement is an injustice to the now-dead who were unable to receive its gratification. Therefore, all improvement must as a moral principle be made impossible and the universe ought to be destroyed. I repeat: individual human beings are wrong to want the better for others, and are irrational in doing so, except in the depraved sense that we belong to a social species. Our capacity for sociality and cooperation does not make us stronger, and this is because it predisposes us to life. This is not contrary to what I have written earlier. The man who plants a tree whose shade he knows he will never rest in is not therefore wise.