@lonelyowl @houseoftolstoy @judgedread

> I agree, but it isn't a wrong concept, rather a wrong word.

It's the wrong concept; I don't suggest these things be treated as sacrosanct but that people understand what they are doing before proposing broad, sweeping changes. Nothing to do with "the status quo should never change" but "There are things about the status quo that are beyond your understanding."

You automate a business process, this involves encoding a large number of complex rules. (You might be astonished what happens when you try to put a business into the computer, or how complicated it is to run a warehouse.) Eventually the codebase gets old and crusty, it's the nature of these things, so someone proposes a complete rewrite and sometimes they get their wish and the new system takes years to catch up to the old, shitty one because there are things the old code accounted for and the new code does not. The old code fucked up, it was fixed to account for some implicit rule, it took years of refining, and the new code does not tend to account for any of those things, because it's not obvious what those things are. That's not to say that a rewrite is a bad idea in every case, but that it is something you have to do carefully and you have to understand the implications.

> You haven't said "making humans immortal is impossible because there is a physics law that prohibits it", and this discussion isn't about if it's possible.

You asked why; whether or not it's possible is possibly the most relevant point, because the answer to the actual question of why we have to cope with mortality is that it's the only game in town.

> Maybe i got you wrong, i thought your point is "we shouldn't make humans immortal even if there will be a practical possibility to do it, otherwise bad things could happen"

If I'm stating it briefly, the point is that if you change some very fundamental things about humanity, it is guaranteed not to go how you think it will go. Suddenly everyone in the Congo is missing a right hand and India is overrun with cobras and rats. Unintended consequences. Blame Leopold, blame the Raj, whatever, the actual thing to blame is a large, sweeping policy change, the thing to blame is top-down decision-making. And in the case of the cycle of birth and reproduction and death, it isn't just "We put a bounty on cobras to get rid of the cobras, but people started breeding them to get more money and now we have too many cobras", this is "You can't die any more" and that is a much bigger thing.