This is a reply to the discussion piece Life Span Extension Research and Public Debate: Societal Considerations, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology by Audrey de Grey.Having read the article there seem to be four messages. The first being, that longevity/immortality research faces rejection, resistance and neglect from `classic anti-aging' researchers, policy makers, the funding system and the public. The second being that the `pro-aging' trance is illogical; the third being that not pushing for longevity and immortality research is immoral; and the fourth being that so far no valid reason for opposing longevity and immortality has been generated and that we will deal with potential problems if and when they appear. My message in this invited comment is 1) that de Grey is right with his first point; 2) that his second point is debatable and depends on certain assumptions; 3) that his third point is even on weaker feet and debatable (Morals and ethics are social and cultural constructions and depending on ones frame of reference something can be seen as moral and ethical or not. This is a whole different paper as to who decides which morals and ethics are right and wrong and can't be covered here.) and 4) that the longevity and immortality research exhibits the same discourse problems as the other new and emerging technology discourses, namely that its makes light of potential and real social risks that it tailors to a minority of the world and ignores the marginalized majority of the world.