Who said anything about gerontology? I was talking about precisely longevity research, i.e. research dedicated to radical life extension.

I think the problem lies in your cognitive dissonance about “good death” and “bad death”. It seems to me, and do correct me if I am wrong, that you think that deaths from cancer, heart attacks, Alzheimer’s etc. are “bad deaths”, and should thus be avoided, therefore, you support curing those diseases.

But deaths from aging you view as natural and somehow separate from the above “bad deaths”, so you don’t support trying to cure those “good deaths” or at least “natural deaths”.

Well, therein lies the fallacy. No one dies from “old age”. As people undergo the aging process (which is an active process of bodily degradation that happens at very different rates between different species), they become exponentially more susceptible to dying from the very same “bad death” diseases — cancer, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, pneumonia, etc.

So every longevity researcher or immortalist is all for curing the very same diseases as you are, they just want to go about it a different way: not one at a time, but all at once, as all age-related diseases have one underlying primary driver — the aging process. It’s more prudent, too — because even if you magically cure cancer, then heart disease will take its place and keep killing people at about the same age that cancer used to. Cure heart disease next, dementia will take its place.