This post is a preambule to actually launching the forum
In the Global Longevity Survey 2024, 37.4% of 14,000 adults across 25 countries said they would want to live forever. The survey was nationally representative in each market by age and gender quotas. It points to potentially hundreds of millions of people who are at least not opposed to the idea that dying might not be the necessary shape of a human life.
And yet 99.99% of them do not follow Longevity Biotech Fellowship on social media, do not go to longevity camps, and do not own a T-shirt with Yamanaka’s portrait on it.
How many are actually taking action? Maybe 2,000? Maybe 10,000? Maybe 1,000,000, if we count consuming content or liking posts as social action. Even that feels generous.
Between passive agreement and an actual movement, there is a canyon, and inside that canyon everyone is asking: “When will the GPT moment happen?”
So why do we need a movement?
Because our fight with mortality is not done until death becomes optional for everyone.
In 2026, the news is unusually bullish. Maybe AI giants will solve biology. Maybe we will get a weak cure for aging. Maybe something finally will work. So should we even take action?
Yes.
A weak cure is still a guarantee of death. And even for a weak cure - finding something promising in the lab is not the same as delivering a vaccine to everyone on Earth. You can very easily die while waiting for a cure-of-something that was announced long ago. Every year of delay means millions of people crossing thresholds they may never cross back from.
Yet there is no public constituency that visibly insists that fighting mortality should be one of humanity’s main priorities, starting with aging.
So why do we need it?
Because otherwise society will not focus.
The incentives to bridge the fundamental scientific gaps are weak. There are no members of parliament saying the word “geroscience” at least once a year. People do not generally understand themselves as patients with a lethal age-related condition. Top universities mostly do not have serious geroscience education, and most of them do not even have small immortalist clubs where people can say, without embarrassment, that death by aging is not a sacred norm but an unsolved problem.
We do not have a living, coherent philosophy of immortalism.
Autocomplete still suggests changing “immortalists” to “immoralists.” Nice.
Immortalism is stuck in a Groundhog Day where “life is good, death is bad” is a controversial opinion, and everyone has to work around the fear of being perceived incorrectly.
The Groundhog Day of Immortalism
As long as we are not a movement, every generation of immortalists will be stuck in the same fragmentation and will burn time rediscovering the same ideas.
Of course, LessWrong exists, but in practice much of its collective attention now orbits AI safety. Effective altruism exists, but animal welfare and biosecurity seem to be more central global problems for them.
This is not an accusation. It is just a fact about attention.
We need our own center of gravity: something that highlights what should be argued about, canonizes key texts, explains the field to newcomers, helps people recognize their roles, and eventually becomes a source of coordination and funding.
Of course, immortalism already has LBF, which I think does a great job, and Vitalism. They both do great work in real life and advocate on X. You can go to their camps. You can buy membership and access to their Slack or Telegram. There are also local communities in local languages.
But we are still missing something broader.
So what do we need?
We need a free, open, international community for anyone who refuses to agree in advance to death by aging or any other preventable cause.
A place that helps the field become less fragmented.
A place where we can debate and gradually build a core body of texts: philosophical, technical, historical, medical, political.
A place where a newcomer can arrive from Google, GPT, or someone’s QR code and get onboarded faster.
A place where organizations like LBF, Vitalism, and Fund Longevity can recruit.
A sugar-free place where we can recognize the scale of the problem without turning that scale into a cult of surrender or a cult of hype.
A place where we can learn to collaborate more broadly and recognize each other’s contributions.
As long as we refuse to treat death as an acceptable ending, we can be here and collaborate.
Why “Antimortality”?
Because the word does not mean certainty of victory.
First comes the refusal to sign a consent form for death by aging. Then comes the decision to fight aging and the other reasons people die. Then comes the action itself.
Maybe this will be a small place at first. Maybe, in the beginning, I will be the only one writing here. That is fine. Intellectual environments almost never begin as crowds.
First there is a place where a thought can stay. Then people form a habit of returning. Then a common language appears. Then come the people who no longer have to walk the whole path alone.
Antimortality exists so that disagreement with death can have a home.
In the Global Longevity Survey 2024, 37.4% of 14,000 adults across 25 countries said they would want to live forever. The survey was nationally representative in each market by age and gender quotas. It points to potentially hundreds of millions of people who are at least not opposed to the idea that dying might not be the necessary shape of a human life.
And yet 99.99% of them do not follow Longevity Biotech Fellowship on social media, do not go to longevity camps, and do not own a T-shirt with Yamanaka’s portrait on it.
How many are actually taking action? Maybe 2,000? Maybe 10,000? Maybe 1,000,000, if we count consuming content or liking posts as social action. Even that feels generous.
Between passive agreement and an actual movement, there is a canyon, and inside that canyon everyone is asking: “When will the GPT moment happen?”
So why do we need a movement?
Because our fight with mortality is not done until death becomes optional for everyone.
In 2026, the news is unusually bullish. Maybe AI giants will solve biology. Maybe we will get a weak cure for aging. Maybe something finally will work. So should we even take action?
Yes.
A weak cure is still a guarantee of death. And even for a weak cure - finding something promising in the lab is not the same as delivering a vaccine to everyone on Earth. You can very easily die while waiting for a cure-of-something that was announced long ago. Every year of delay means millions of people crossing thresholds they may never cross back from.
Yet there is no public constituency that visibly insists that fighting mortality should be one of humanity’s main priorities, starting with aging.
So why do we need it?
Because otherwise society will not focus.
The incentives to bridge the fundamental scientific gaps are weak. There are no members of parliament saying the word “geroscience” at least once a year. People do not generally understand themselves as patients with a lethal age-related condition. Top universities mostly do not have serious geroscience education, and most of them do not even have small immortalist clubs where people can say, without embarrassment, that death by aging is not a sacred norm but an unsolved problem.
We do not have a living, coherent philosophy of immortalism.
Autocomplete still suggests changing “immortalists” to “immoralists.” Nice.
Immortalism is stuck in a Groundhog Day where “life is good, death is bad” is a controversial opinion, and everyone has to work around the fear of being perceived incorrectly.
The Groundhog Day of Immortalism
As long as we are not a movement, every generation of immortalists will be stuck in the same fragmentation and will burn time rediscovering the same ideas.
Of course, LessWrong exists, but in practice much of its collective attention now orbits AI safety. Effective altruism exists, but animal welfare and biosecurity seem to be more central global problems for them.
This is not an accusation. It is just a fact about attention.
We need our own center of gravity: something that highlights what should be argued about, canonizes key texts, explains the field to newcomers, helps people recognize their roles, and eventually becomes a source of coordination and funding.
Of course, immortalism already has LBF, which I think does a great job, and Vitalism. They both do great work in real life and advocate on X. You can go to their camps. You can buy membership and access to their Slack or Telegram. There are also local communities in local languages.
But we are still missing something broader.
So what do we need?
We need a free, open, international community for anyone who refuses to agree in advance to death by aging or any other preventable cause.
A place that helps the field become less fragmented.
A place where we can debate and gradually build a core body of texts: philosophical, technical, historical, medical, political.
A place where a newcomer can arrive from Google, GPT, or someone’s QR code and get onboarded faster.
A place where organizations like LBF, Vitalism, and Fund Longevity can recruit.
A sugar-free place where we can recognize the scale of the problem without turning that scale into a cult of surrender or a cult of hype.
A place where we can learn to collaborate more broadly and recognize each other’s contributions.
As long as we refuse to treat death as an acceptable ending, we can be here and collaborate.
Why “Antimortality”?
Because the word does not mean certainty of victory.
First comes the refusal to sign a consent form for death by aging. Then comes the decision to fight aging and the other reasons people die. Then comes the action itself.
Maybe this will be a small place at first. Maybe, in the beginning, I will be the only one writing here. That is fine. Intellectual environments almost never begin as crowds.
First there is a place where a thought can stay. Then people form a habit of returning. Then a common language appears. Then come the people who no longer have to walk the whole path alone.
Antimortality exists so that disagreement with death can have a home.