Death IS Terrorism - it must be eliminated -

Immortal Life
Human Destiny is to Eliminate Death

Home > Articles > Death IS Terrorism - it must be eliminated

Death IS Terrorism - it must be eliminated

Posted: Sat, April 20, 2013 | By: Indefinite Life Extension

by Maria Konovalenko

In his Boston Marathon Memorial speech Barak Obama said that the bombers wanted to attack the American values of freedom and openness, but they chose the wrong city. 

“Not here in Boston. Not here in Boston” - he repeated. 

I believe the terrorists attacked not only the openness of the USA. 

Terrorism is an argument between those who believe the value of life is “AFTER LIFE” and those who value LIFE itself.

If a person values Life, they value its extension and pleasure and rational worldview. 

Their antagonist is a person who believes that surrounding reality is a Matrix, a bad dream that needs to be broken down as soon as possible in order to wake up into the true, Religious Life. The terrorists see around them  only Agent Smiths and sleeping zombies, who can be woken up only by explosions.

A terrorist believes that they are demolishing only the Illusion, not the True Reality. 

Of course, the complete opposite is actually happened: the terrorist brain has been eaten by an unproven worldview, the gigantic cognitive distortion of Religious Propaganda.

What a terrorist considers to be Enlightenment, is a Disease. Terrorists are not fighting the Zombie World; it is they themselves who are the Zombies. 

There is a serious bug in religious philosophy. It is supposed to promise Eternal Life after Death, and it is also supposed to Forbid Murder. 

But if Death is not actually Death, then Murder is not actually Murder.

Death is real only for an atheist.

The third world war has already begun. It is between those who seek Death, and those, who strive to Live. There is no other option, no third pole. 

If we want to live on Earth, we must say: “Not here in Boston, not here in America, not anywhere in the World.  We should never facilitate death, including by our inactivity.”


Maria Konovalenko is an “Aging Fighter” - she wants to live forever and she wants everybody on Earth to have this opportunity.   


“There is no other option, no third pole.”

This Manichean worldview seems to be copied directly from the language of religious extremism that Maria is decrying. Essentially she is saying, like Jesus in the gospels, “You are either with me or against me.”

And this, of course, is tempting rhetoric for an “aging fighter” to use. But it risks alienating those who may be sympathetic, but actually quite like the idea of a “third pole”.

After all, there is a difference between “want[ing] everybody on Earth to have this opportunity [to live forever]” and seeing - and indeed potentially provoking - some kind of apocalyptic struggle between those who want to have this opportunity and those who might prefer to opt out.

Of course, alongside the risk of alienating the centre, there is also the more positive (from the point of view of the “aging fighter”) consequence of firing up the base. But even then, there are less delusional ways to do it. The reality is that there IS a third pole, in fact there are multiple poles, multiple nuances one might bring to bear on the question of how to reconcile the deep-seated desire to live forever with the myriad challenges and risks associated with any serious attempt to make that happen.

At least that’s how I see it. I am still enormously attracted by the idea of indefinite life extension, but I will not dismiss the counterarguments so quickly. Aging fighters need to demonstrate, credibly, that this is a project that can be brought to term without exacerbating the enormous challenges that society already faces.

There are different ways to pursue immortality. Believing in heaven is one of them, and one does not have to be a terrorist to do so. Nor does one have to believe in an afterlife to be a terrorist.) Life extension technologies and cryonics are others. Or one can try to build a legacy, so as to leave something behind: a part of you that will live on.

The first option delusional, but then most of us are delusional in various ways, so we should not be too quick to judge those who are delusional in that particular way. In fact, until we are further a long the path to demonstrating the feasibility and (social) desirability of indefinite life extension, I suspect that the third option (building a legacy) remains the most healthy.

So this is the third pole. I do not assume that indefinite life extension will be available in my life time, and even if it is, my consciousness will doubtless evolve and intermingle with others as brain to brain communication technologies emerge, so the question may well become moot. I remain sympathetic to and supportive of attempts to accelerate progress in defeating ageing, but (like Aubrey De Grey - as he stated very clearly at this year’s gathering do the Mormon Transhumanist Association) not as a means to increase longevity, but rather to reduce the misery and morbidity caused by ageing.

Above all, I support efforts to increase public knowledge and debate around these issues, based on clarity of thought and respect for those with different preferences and values. May there be many poles.

By Peter Wicks on Apr 23, 2013 at 9:47am

Terrorists are not necessarily religious.

By Reeve on Apr 23, 2013 at 12:03pm

Forever is a long long long long loooonnggg time. How can we begin to talk about such a thing. There is no third pole. Either you are for life extension or you are not.

By Terry Harris on Apr 23, 2013 at 3:19pm

Peter - You think we should rest on the comfort of knowing we can leave a legacy and that we shouldn’t fight for indefinite life extension until we can prove that there is research that can be done that could find a viable pathway to making it happen?

We don’t have to know that we can get there to go there, but we do have to go there to get to.

By Eric Schulke on Apr 23, 2013 at 6:14pm

Thank you for your very reasoned approach, Peter. I can only hope more people with the passion for our cause are able to temper it, and channel it in effective ways.

Focusing on religious belief is not the way to grow awareness for a real and publicly legitimate cause that effects everyone. I understand cultural bias is also a factor for some people and they are quick to blame belief systems.

We don’t live in a black and white world and regardless of the way we personally feel about some of the multiple ‘poles’ in question (which obviously exist as ‘perspectives’) they do influence different people in different ways (in the ‘real world’) and to assume people’s motivations simply based on our interpretations of their beliefs is unfair and more importantly for us, inaccurate and fundamentally detrimental. That’s right we actually NEED the help of people who claim to be religious. Moderate people, not fundamentalists of any stripe (see what I did there?)

People can argue and throw up pseudo-intellectual arguments until they are blue in the face, but the facts don’t lie:

Religious belief in an afterlife does not necessarily infringe one’s will to help people on earth. In fact, in many cases it’s not even a factor, no thought at other cases it actually motivates people to help others, to donate to causes, to end create ‘heaven on earth’ . Aren’t those the sorts of ‘religious acts’ that we should promote?

Judge actions, not claims…if you must judge.

It is, dare I say, obnoxiously presumptuous to disregard the diversity and gradients of perspectives and opinions of the people who identify with religious (or other) ‘belief systems’.

Please, life-extension advocates, I urge you, apply the same critical thought that you revere in other areas to the way you approach public relations, multi-cultural group mentalities, the positive powers of placebos and the myriad manifestations of human compassion, empathy etc.

After all, strong social groups that practice some level of tolerance, mutual respect, freedom of expression and ‘spirituality’ (for a lack of a better word) live longer wink

So, find people who share our goals of longer, healthier lives and alleviating the suffering of ‘aging’ and embrace them into our fold, despite their other opinions or beliefs. You do want us to raise funds and awareness, right?

That’s the only thing that’s black and white…either you want the public to embrace us or you don’t…if you you, you have to also embrace them as they are…thanks.

By Sean Emery Flatt on Apr 23, 2013 at 11:46pm

Eric, there are two issues here, which need to be carefully distinguished: feasibility and desirability. I agree that we don’t need to know how we can get there before deciding to make the effort to try, and I said I am basically supportive of our efforts to do so. So no, I am not suggesting that we “rest on the comfort of knowing we can leave a legacy”. What I am suggesting is that we actively build that legacy, which may, for example, involve handing over the means to live forever to the next generation, like Moses who led his people within sight of, but failed himself to reach, the Promised Land.

Perhaps the real disagreement here is where we want to position ourselves on the spectrum between “fighting” for indefinite life extension and cautiously pursuing it. Personally I am more inclined to favour the latter, at least at this particular moment in my personal journey, not least because of what I regard as legitimate concerns regarding not only the feasibility but also the desirability (from the perspective of humanity as a whole, the “99%”, if you will) of this technology becoming available.

I guess I just wanted to make that clear.

By Peter Wicks on Apr 24, 2013 at 12:39am

Crystal clear point about the “bug” in religious thinking in regards to the prohibition on murder, while the value of human physical life is denied. Thank you.

By Joe Bardin on Apr 24, 2013 at 10:03am

Leave a Comment:

Note We practice Buddhist Right Speech in our communication. All comments must be polite, friendly, and on topic.

What color is a blue sky?