You're definitely not alone - though I disagree with your view, I've been in enough back-and-forths about it on HN to know that plenty of thoughtful people here are against life extension, for various reasons (that can't all be just reduced to Stockholm syndrome).

For instance, there's worry that life extension will vastly worsen economic inequality. Another problem is that a lot systems in society (e.g. retirement, insurance) is implicitly based on current average lifespan, and a sudden extension of it could cause such shockwaves in the economy that it would create more suffering than it would save.

I mention these two because I acknowledge them as real risks, but despite them, I'm 100% in support of life extension. I sincerely hope that one day humans will be able to extends life indefinitely, while retaining full capacity (i.e. no everlasting life in a body of a 90-years-old).

> Am I quite alone in this?

I sure hope so.

But, to take your line of thinking further, what are the odds that we are currently at just the right lifespan for humans? If you are against increasing human lifespan, you should also probably be in favor of decreasing it, unless you think we are at very special point in time in entire human history.

I think the number is possibly arbitrary. I am not making any argument about it. I am just at present trying to understand why temperamentally and instinctively I am against it.

I am also seeking to understand if others feel as I do on this subject.

Dying was Impossible to evade so far. So the best thing for happiness and Mental Health is to accept or not think about it. Maybe even see it as a "good" thing

To even Aknowledge that it might be possible could lead to false hope and disappointment. I think thats the main reason many people are instinctively against it

The mind basically tries to protect them from fighting against the impossible and earning nothing but dread and disappointment.

Not sure if same but I am in favor of artificially controlling age so you can decide how long you should live.

No. In fact I suspect my feeling is that control is exactly what is not good for humans to have too much of.

I think the opposite. I believe a lack of control, especially over one's mortality is what leads to a lot of the bad shit that happens in the world. If everyone was guaranteed their health and freedom from the shadow of death we'd probably be a damn site happier and less neurotic.

or freedom from the chains of living. It would be interesting to see how everyone reacts to an instant death switch or ability to set your own death date lower or higher than your natural life expectancy without society having control over it. Not only people want control over their lives but once they get it, they will naturally want to control others. What if advanced medicine can extend your life beyond your natural life expectancy (maybe even immortality) but you don't want to live that longer? Why isn't it always a good thing to cure people and prevent them from dying as long as possible, John?

Religion perpetuated the notion that living is inherently better than death despite suffering and we are stuck with it everywhere.

Rationally, is it true that someone can be better off dead? No. For something to be better, it requires comparison of former with later state. Since you won't exist, there is no state to compare. No one dead can feel sadness. (of course that's relying on there being no after life or reincarnation)

Flip that switch, is it true someone can be better off living? No. For the same reason, you have to presume continued existence is good since you can't rely on comparing states.

How do you know continued existence will be good or better?

That you can't. You can make a guess based on data relying on hedonism but that's all there is. No one agrees on what good continued existence is either so people in part are using their experience and values to judge which doesn't make sense if you allow individuals to have freedom of deciding their own values and life.

I say, we stop extending life expectancy and focus on cutting off the problems that make existing existence a pain even if for majority, happiness or society outweigh it. There are many useless things people waste their life on currently, why do they need to?

Even if everyone was against it, at some point science would reach the state that it would happen, or become trivial, without anyone trying.

Scientific progress may not continue indefinitely. We don't really know what will happen.