You've done a great job at pointing out the weaknesses of the arguments -- bodies do get repaired, people manage to find things to do, and accidental death is a much easier risk to deal with than certain death.

However bodies are not even in the same few orders of magnitude of complexity as an old car, spending 200 years plugged into Facebook probably isn't the most productive thing for the rest of society, and your brain still can only hold so much and you still be you.

So -- points for pointing out the flaws, but no credit for failing to see the larger truth. Yes, being alive forever beats dying. Now on to step 2, where you start critically thinking about the odds of you personally living forever and the real trade-offs with not dying. Which is Jacques point.

The main point where Jacques blew it? He used our current definition of human as a working definition for the future. This species is evolving, and evolving at a super-fast rate. I don't think we would recognize our descendants ten thousand years from now as being human in any way.