250 An Introduction to Immortalist Morality compatible with ‘immortalist morality’. At a 1999 conference on life extension, Rabbi Neil Gillman had this to say: There  is  nothing  redemptive  about  death.  Death  is incoherent. Death is absurd. The rabbi was asked if Jewish tradition would endorse pro- longing human life for twenty years. “Yes”, answered the rabbi. Forty years? “Yes.” One hundred years? “Yes.” He regarded the indefinite prolongation of life as a moral good. [7] MOTIVATION What would motivate very long-lived people to continue to strive to create new things and explore new realms? The basic moral premise we have been talking about: the desire to see life survive. This is an ongoing process: it is a journey not a destination. If immortality was something that we reached at some point, then it could no longer serve as the founda- tion of ethics. But no matter how far advanced our science and technology becomes, it is unlikely that the continuation of our own life can ever be guaranteed. It may be theoreti- cally possible to live forever, but this would likely involve the continual solving of new problems and overcoming of new challenges. We could think of guaranteed infinite life span as a sort of mathematical limit, which we can get closer and closer to, but never quite reach. Each new scientific advance would lower the risk of dying, but the quest for immortality would continue forever. Would  not  people  who  adopted  an  immortalist  morality become very risk adverse? The answer is no, because people have to take some risks in order to continue to survive. There is no paradox between aiming to live a long time and taking some risks in the short-term. Short-term risks have to be taken