You're conflating wanting death and accepting that it will happen, in both the case of oneself and family/friends. You think that "acceptance" is some BS we cooked up because we had no other choice, and that's a fine position, but don't caricature acceptance as actively wanting death.
> do you want to die?
No. I also want an infinite supply of resources (for me, and for everybody else, why not), the ability to experience any scenario I can dream up with any people I want even if they don't want it, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. The inevitability of death is perhaps a classic denial, but there are infinite other ways you can't always have what you want. (At the risk of sounding defeatist, trite, and in favor of The Order of Things.) If you could wave a wand and force any person to love you, would it be meaningful? If you were guaranteed to get whatever you wanted in any other sphere? Maybe I'm rambling here, but the point is, how will removing death solve all the other problems that come with billions of autonomous agents with generally incompatible wills existing together in a single, inherently meaningless universe with (probably) immutable physical laws and finite time, matter, and energy?
OK, so solving death is an incremental improvement, and thus may be worth it to some... but perhaps I've described a reason not everybody is going to be obsessed with it -- it's just one form of a vastly large general problem.
Also, I'm wondering what "more people car[ing]" about eradicating death would look like to you. The article discusses "digitizing the brain", there are thousands of scientists and dollars spent on eradicating certain cancers and other diseases, and many other sciences that could be applied to this problem. You're welcome to fund/conduct your own research, but apparently other people have more pressing concerns.