Stephen's second essay, like his first, is elegant and insightful, and offers challenges to my views that invite (and require!) me to clarify them. In particular, he homes in on important questions about what exactly I’m arguing for, in contending that you should choose radical life extension under favorable circumstances. If I don’t believe the various conditions involved in “favorable circumstances” will be satisfied, what does it mean for me to contend that you should choose such radical life extension? Further, what is the role of an “exit strategy” in my thinking about the choice worthiness of radical life extension?