Thread: Fear of death - A rational fear?

Originally Posted by Abra

I think all the rationalization people perform in relation to death deals with the fact that it's currently unpreventable. So the world of progress is drowned out by thousands of years of coping culture.

This is something I've noticed when the topic of anti-ageing medicine and indefinite lifespans are brought up. Unfortunately it's delaying research into ways to stop it, a particular shame given that there is some basic understanding of what goes on.

I did watch a video recently which made an interesting point (albeit one I disagree with) that an indefinite lifespan should result in a much higher fear of death because the corresponding loss is greater.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

It's wishful thinking for anyone now to think they're going to live forever. There's clearly a far higher chance that we're going to face death (especially when factoring in disease/illness/accidents).

I don't think it's in the realm of possibility for the next few generations. We need to change our mindset, however, before our actions will follow. If we act according to the philosophy that death is preventable, then we will search for a way to get there instead of sitting on our asses waiting for 'the inevitable.'

I don't see where this started or was going anyway the whole technology vs. Evolution thing here. we would be evolving while the immortals made technology, first why wouldn't they share the other tech with us and second if they didn't its not like they would suddenly become way stronger, because there tech would be stolen by the mortals, and as Omnis already pointed out a full cup cannot keep getting water put into it, and when we had kids, they would be able to learn this new tech, and then elaborate on it in ways the immortals couldn't because they have a fresh mind and fresh start, and a different look on things.

Originally Posted by Abra

I don't think it's in the realm of possibility for the next few generations. We need to change our mindset, however, before our actions will follow. If we act according to the philosophy that death is preventable, then we will search for a way to get there instead of sitting on our asses waiting for 'the inevitable.'

It scares me that people would want to live forever, whats the point in a game you can't lose/or beat.

Originally Posted by Abra

I don't think it's in the realm of possibility for the next few generations. We need to change our mindset, however, before our actions will follow. If we act according to the philosophy that death is preventable, then we will search for a way to get there instead of sitting on our asses waiting for 'the inevitable.'

I think our whole mindset is instinctively geared toward extending life. It's what we've been doing for eons.

Though I still wonder if the progressive extension of our lives so far has been an epiphenomenon of our goal to simply be more healthy. And there's only so far that merely increasing health can extend life.

Originally Posted by ZeraCook

It scares me that people would want to live forever, whats the point in a game you can't lose/or beat.

There's a large difference between "forever" and "as long as I want".

Originally Posted by Abra

I don't think it's in the realm of possibility for the next few generations. We need to change our mindset, however, before our actions will follow. If we act according to the philosophy that death is preventable, then we will search for a way to get there instead of sitting on our asses waiting for 'the inevitable.'

It'll definitely take some time, but there's a fairly decent chance of today's generation being around to see it. Plus, given the ever increasing advances in stem cell research and tissue engineering I suspect that will dramatically reduce the effects of ageing. What can be done today is very promising, and it's the tip of the iceberg.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

There's a large difference between "forever" and "as long as I want".

It'll definitely take some time, but there's a fairly decent chance of today's generation being around to see it. Plus, given the ever increasing advances in stem cell research and tissue engineering I suspect that will dramatically reduce the effects of ageing. What can be done today is very promising, and it's the tip of the iceberg.

Just a question, but do you study anything? Are you actively participating in the endeavor in some way or plan to? I was seriously into artificial intelligence for a while, and before that, medicine, but in the end I decided helping preserve the environment will be more important to the current world (so I study chemistry--also because I like it).

Originally Posted by Photolysis

There's a large difference between "forever" and "as long as I want".

I think the longer you lived the more you would fear death, and since you already abandoned your natural life cycle, it shows that you fear your death, and the more you grip to your life the more you will fear your death. Seems like a never ending cycle of fear.

Originally Posted by Alric

It totally matters if you can't keep up with technology. Evolution builds on itself, and currently humans are moving past biological evolution and all our evolution is going to be based on technology. We will probably be able to alter our bodies and even our genes faster through technology than biological breeding. How does biological evolution effect anything if people can alter their bodies at will with technology?

Again though, this approach is irrelevant, and speaks to your black and white views of evolution. Technology and evolution are mutually compatible. This is because technology is often a product of ethos. See my argument on ethos.

The RPG's are a good example, because new programmers often recreate old video games when they are learning new things. They think they are being original and creating something new but its just repeating of old stuff. There are ton of new things that are just copies of old. New programmers generally suck, and don't create very original stuff. If you look at the people who are on the cutting edge, who are creating the original content, its the people with experience. People with a lot of experience. And even if you got a young team, there is always a very experienced person leading the group, and giving instructions on what to do.

But to counter that example, look at the biggest companies in the world, who produce the same game every year, tweak it a little bit, and make money. They become too concentrated to put out original content, and we rely on the indie game companies to transform the game industry.

Lets put it this way. Someone spends 26 years going through schooling to get an advanced degree in physics. They spend 5 years research in some area and then they die. A new person spends 26 years going through the same school and then picks off where the other guy left off. He spends 5 years researching then dies. This happens to 3 more people, for a total of 5 people. They have now spent a total of 25 years of doing original research.

Now another person spends 26 years going through schooling to get an advanced degree in physics. He spends 129 years doing research in an area. Who is going to know more? Not only does this second person have 5 times the amount of time doing the research, but he can draw on all the data he learned to make his researching far more efficient. Even if you thought having a fresh perspective was important, he would simply take a five year vacation at several points during the process and come back with that new view and still be far ahead of the others.

It's more like 26 years of schooling, 15 of which is spent researching and helping researchers, with another 30 to 40 spent leading research. And something fundamental happens during this schooling which is why I think you bring up a good example. People get concentrated. All you need to understand about my argument that people become more rigid as they develop can be seen in the school system. The more school you take, the more specific your focus becomes, the more you see the world through a specific set of lenses. Mathematicians that spend 20 years studying math see the world entirely differently than people that spend 20 years studying art, for example. And there's nothing wrong with specialization, just like there's nothing wrong with enjoying a juicy steak and mash potatoes separately rather than trying to put them in a blender and ingest them that way. Some things simply cannot be analyzed by the same set of criteria as other things. This is why it's good to have people who specialize and people who are more broad. This is why it's good to analyze both waves and particles rather than pretend one of the two holds no merit.

So we're all a unique little snowflake, right? Why encase like a million snowflakes in glass and then turn off the clouds? Why suppress the constantly moving flow of life?

To address your procrastination issue, that isn't an issue at all. Most people are really not motivated to seize the day because they think they will die. If you are motivated that way you are probably having a midlife crisis, and those don't last that long and are often not very productive. Most people simply do not think about death on a day to day biases. For the sake of argument however, lets say it does motivate people. Well it still doesn't matter because people would be motivated out of boredom any way. No one wants to sit around doing nothing at all day long, it is boring. Even if there was no death you would still feel compelled to do stuff.

A midlife crisis is the opposite. People feel like they've been wasting time and attempt to figure out what they wish to do in order to feel fulfilled. Some cling to youth, thinking life is meant to be full of youthful experiences. Some attempt to work in their community, thinking life is meant to be an opportunity to serve others. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities.

Your last point seems silly. There are people over a 100 and they are still having fun. People don't stop having fun when they age. Life is fun which is why I want it to keep going on. It is extremely unlikely you will ever run out of fun and interesting things to do. That point is basically saying that I should sacrifice my fun for the sake of others fun. Why should I give up my happiness for others? There isn't even any guarantee that my dying will even make it more fun. In fact if I die a lot of people will be very sad. So why would I sacrifice my fun in order to hurt others? It makes no logical sense.

Would a rollercoaster still be fun if it went on forever? Wouldn't it be more fun if it stopped and you got to experience a different rollercoaster each time?

Let me put it this way. If someone gives you the perfect gift, something you always wanted, something you love. Do you enjoy that gift because you one day think it will be taken away? Or do you enjoy the gift because it was a really great gift? Me, I would enjoy it because its a really great gift. Life is a gift, and so we should hold onto it forever. I don't throw out important items in my life, I don't discard gifts because it makes me like them more. Why would I throw away the most important gift I have ever received.

I enjoy it at first until I take it for granted and the novelty wears off. In fact, it is because I have lost very important things that I know to take care of other things I hold important.

If you got a huge diamond and gold watch that George Washington wore when he was sworn in as the first president of the US, you would hold on to that with everything. You would do everything in your power to keep that. And it's value doesn't come because you expect someone will one day steal it, it comes from the value of the gift itself.

I would consider such a watch valuable because other people would want it so I could make a fortune by selling it. To me this metaphor works better considering a body of work. I consider my mind valuable because I can share it with others and positively influence the world.

To me it sounds like you are taking your life for granted. You think if you die you can just replace your life with several others, and so dying is no big deal. That is the definition of taking things for granted. The view I hold is taking life extremely seriously.

I find life to be best lived as a temporary experience. This doesn't mean I take it for granted. It simply means I don't live in fear of the fact that life is temporary, I don't think it's superior to live forever, and I don't think it would make me happier to live forever. I think life would be the most enjoyable gift it could possibly be because it's temporary. By your logic, people suffering on their death beds shouldn't have the option to commit suicide even if they've lived long, fulfilling lives and are currently feeling intense, chronic pain with no end in sight. Because they're alive. And if they chose to end it, they'd be taking life for granted. That simply isn't true.

Originally Posted by Abra

I'd be alright if reincarnation were true. It'd be awesome if everyone got to be everyone, or something.

But basing a lifestyle on wishful thinking isn't always exactly useful. If it were ever somehow proven (say, by comparing the firing signals of newly developing brains, and seeing if the brain's 'initial conditions,' I'm talking signals and not atoms, were the same), then think of how different we'd behave towards, well, everything else!

For one, your criteria to judge whether or not reincarnation is true is flawed already. These conditions would be removed, so there'd be no way to judge based on that criteria. The only way to judge would be to consider what the mind really is, as a separate concept than the brain. I am speculating on the continuation of consciousness and my argument was that it's irrelevant because you would lose your identity, so I already made your argument for you. But I have no problem losing my identity. It's a superficial sort of thing anyways, and it will survive in my body of work, so my identity will survive in the usefulness I provide for society. But time is infinite so inevitably even that usefulness is useless. Therefore the highest good I can see is the play.

But for now, it's just wishful thinking. And the risk is greater than the reward. By believing in reincarnation, you detract attention from improving any one current life, since suicide is an easy and effective escape. If it were proven, you could expect a lot more suicides... But there's no proof. So believing in this is merely your comfort. Like believing you'll win the lottery eventually, that it's in the stars for you. To each his own, except you're opinion contributes to a culture that keeps me from ever getting my robotic immortal superbrain.

You automatically pin me down as being an advocate that reincarnation exists for suggesting it... great job. I stated clearly that I don't believe nor disbelieve it, I simply think it is no less likely than the idea that consciousness ends when the body dies. And there is proof of this, if you like I'll even point you to the lecture on youtube but be warned, you may find it boring.

I think you are misunderstanding me a little Zeracook. I think the immortal people are going to happily share their technology with the mortals, and that the mortals will keep on evolving. My point is that the the evolution is just going to be irrelevant.

Someone might be different in the future, but if you can use something like gene therapy and reproduce the differences in another person, then those changes are not very important. It isn't like an immortal person is forever stuck with the body they have, they will be able to change their body with technology, and do it at far faster speeds than mortal people who evolved over time.

As for the full cup thing that is just wrong. The brain grows and so it is never full. Unless you have some kind of brain disease(which you wouldn't be immortal if you had a disease slowly killing your brain), you are fully capable to keep learning for as long as you are alive, and you can keep learning new ways of viewing things the entire time as well.

As for fearing death, if you have medicine and stuff to prevent it, then that removes a great amount of that fear. There is no constant worrying, because you know you can fix any problems that appear.

As for IndieAnthias, how often do you wake up and say, "I have little time left to live so I better do something right now!" For most people, they never think that way. The only time people think that way is when they have some terminal or series diseases, or injury that might result in their death. Or they are having a midlife crisis, thinking that they will die soon and have not accomplished much. That most definitely is not a day to day line of thought.

My view; I'd want the ability to live forever, but I'd also like the ability to terminate it if I didn't like it.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You automatically pin me down as being an advocate that reincarnation exists for suggesting it... great job. I stated clearly that I don't believe nor disbelieve it, I simply think it is no less likely than the idea that consciousness ends when the body dies. And there is proof of this, if you like I'll even point you to the lecture on youtube but be warned, you may find it boring.

Link me please, I'm interested.

An important aspect with living forever is forgotten memories (loss of your identity, some may say) - what do you think of that? Or is the assumption that living forever will mean ever-lasting memories too?

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Link me please, I'm interested.

Let me ask this Omnis Dei. What is to stop me from living for 5000 years, then deciding to go back to school. I go through school and I am taught by all the young people and they all give me insight on their ways of thinking. In fact, I would be indoctrinated and gain the same thinking pattern of everyone else going through that learning process.

It would be similar as if I spend my first 70 years of life learning to be a computer engineer. Then I went to a cooking school and spent the next 30 years being a chef. I would still have all the knowledge and skills of being an engineer, but spending all that time in cooking school I would learn just like others and pick up those same thinking patterns and skills. At the end of the day I would have superior skill and knowledge when compared to either a 70 year old computer engineer or a 30 year old chef.

My main counterpoint to your view is that people are flexible, and so even if they develop a rigid views they can still change those views. Here is a good example, it is like a computer. Your view seems to be that when a computer gets bogged down and slow, you need to reformat. Delete everything and start fresh. What I am saying is no, you just need a defrag. You just readjust and reorder your views and you keep on going with all your memories and thoughts intact.

I understand where you are coming from but your method seems overly destructive. You can achieve all those results you are talking about without anyone dying.

Originally Posted by Abra

Just a question, but do you study anything? Are you actively participating in the endeavor in some way or plan to? I was seriously into artificial intelligence for a while, and before that, medicine, but in the end I decided helping preserve the environment will be more important to the current world (so I study chemistry--also because I like it).

I put my chemistry degree on hold several years ago, and I'm not actively involved in any scientific discipline at the moment. I do still have a strong interest in the subject however, and try to keep up to date with recent developments; knowing people in different fields helps.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for IndieAnthias, how often do you wake up and say, "I have little time left to live so I better do something right now!" For most people, they never think that way. The only time people think that way is when they have some terminal or series diseases, or injury that might result in their death. Or they are having a midlife crisis, thinking that they will die soon and have not accomplished much. That most definitely is not a day to day line of thought.

It's an ideal, but I do try. I think something along those lines (but not that exactly) at least once a day. Not with a sense of urgency, quite the opposite in fact. I know a few other people who cultivate this view as well. Most of my acquaintances don't seem to have much use for it, but whatever.

I think you're projecting your outlook onto everyone here. Actually, from this thread, it seems you do that a lot. Your values are not universal human values. I only say this because you particularly seem like you could use this reminder. I wish you the best of luck and hopefully you do live forever and love every second of it.

I don't consider death destructive. I consider life to be a process of renewal and I think you're putting too much importance on individual lives while I put importance on the processes of the living environment. Like I said before, I'd rather enjoy a snowstorm than encase a million snowflakes in glass. I find the flow of life, death and rebirth, is just change. I don't think change is such a negative thing, and I think death is merely part of this change.

But I do see your point on learning new skills later in life.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to argue that the cup gets full and you can't add anything. But the human brain cannot be defragged as easily as a computer. Which is not a bad thing. When someone becomes very good at viewing the world a certain way, such as a mathematician, the way they view the world simply isn't compatible with the way an artist views the world. Someone who spends a lot of time studying art and a lot of time studying math will achieve some sort of compromise of the two, but the way each of these three people view the world will remain fundamentally different and still integral to reality.

In otherwords what I'm saying is what you don't learn is just as valuable as what you do learn as far as shaping your perspective on life. For certain purposes, it's simply not advantageous for an automotive engineer to read Nietzsche and have an existential crisis. Well... maybe it is, I can't predict what the result would be.

Let me try a different metaphor. Let's say several soldiers get sent on a suicide mission but they're not told it's a suicide mission. The general knows, of course, but he can't tell them because he needs them to keep the faith. At the very least, he can't let those fuckers get ahold of Nietzsche and start questioning the divine truth of God and Country. He needs them to be specialized and ignorant enough that they're capable of carrying out a task which will protect the lives of thousands of other soldiers. The highest good they can possibly achieve, in this case, would be accomplishing their task, which would inevitably result in their death.

Faith that you are part of something greater than yourself is integral to this. Let's say you're holding a bridge and as far as you can perceive there's no chance you won't die, but you know for your cause you must hold this bridge as long as possible, and just keep the enemy away long enough for something you can't even perceive, something you don't even know exists, to come into fruition. Then, at the last possible second before a tank blows your brains out, an airstrike comes and mows the enemy down, and you keep the ground long enough for your reinforcements. Because you had faith in the greater movement of life, you were willing to hold that position.

Let me conclude by saying this. Let's say you chose to live forever and I chose to die. I wouldn't consider this unfair, and I wouldn't consider you the winner of some esoteric game. Because I never really died. I am everything, I am Legion. I am the all encompassing environment to which my body and mind represent a single tendril.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for fearing death, if you have medicine and stuff to prevent it, then that removes a great amount of that fear. There is no constant worrying, because you know you can fix any problems that appear.

by showing that you want to use medicine and stuff to prevent it then you are fearing it. You are not allowing your natural death to come into place by intervening so you are fearing it, and that is why you are prolonging it.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for the full cup thing that is just wrong. The brain grows and so it is never full. Unless you have some kind of brain disease(which you wouldn't be immortal if you had a disease slowly killing your brain), you are fully capable to keep learning for as long as you are alive, and you can keep learning new ways of viewing things the entire time as well.

It was a speculation. I don't think the brain keeps growing, because eventually with age it starts to deteriorate, and the fact that you are planning on making your body stop ageing you would be making your body stop growing too. but these are all theories really because we can't even make anyone live forever so who are we to say what would happen if we could, we can only speculate.

Aging and growing are not the same thing. The brain continues to grow because we can keep making new connections within our brain, while it deteriorate because of the accumulation of errors and junk in the cells of the brain. If you remove the accumulation of bad stuff, and allow the brain to continue to make new connections you can have a growing brain that doesn't age.

As I said before, yea everyone should fear death and I think most people do. Though we don't have that disabling fear of death, we find ways to cope with it. If you are living forever, then it isn't going to be a stress factor in your life because you know you can overcome death. You might still fear it some times, but it isn't going to be that disabling fear and it isn't going to cause stress in your life.

I find death very destructive, after all it kills people. I think life does bring renewal but you don't need death to have life. The problem I have is that you are basically saying that a persons life is meaningless because it becomes obsolete and so needs to be disposed of for the new to come in.

I have to ask why you think that though. I agree that each individual person is unique but why is the newer views better than the older views? Why does the old views need to be thrown out? You can have both views, you can have the new and old at the same time. There is no reason to get rid of the old. Killing old people doesn't make the newer people any better.

You can have a snowstorm of new snowflakes, without trampling all over the ones that have already fallen. You can be part of something greater without sacrificing yourself. That is my main problem with your line of thinking. You can have all these things without the death.

Why do you need the death? What does the destruction of past memories and thoughts gain anyone? That is what I don't see, I don't see a benefit of people dying. People dying doesn't add anything, it only subtracts.

It isn't like humans extract vital nutrients from the dead and we need dead bodies for the next generation to grow. We can still have new children and new ideas, we just need to pull back and do it more slowly if most people want to live forever. Give time for technology to increase the carrying capacity of the earth and then fill it as we go. You can have that increase in new life without the death.

Again though, we meet with two completely different views of death. Why is death destructive because it kills people? I don't think this assumption has any more validation than the assumption that winter is destructive because trees shed their leaves in order to cope with it as efficiently as possible.

The whole is more valuable to life than the individual parts. For instance, if certain people who served prison time for their cause were to shy away from prison because they believed enjoying their life was more important than their cause, we would be at an evolutionary standstill. If William Wallace believed his life was more important than a free Scotland, Robert the Bruce would have never been inspired to lead the Scottish Wars for independence. Martin Luther King would have never made a speech, Henry David Thoreau would have never advocated the ideals of "On Civil Disobedience."

By allowing yourself to be something more than just yourself, part of a cycle of death and rebirth, you allow yourself to work toward the greater good than simply living forever. You cannot increase the carrying capacity without threatening other life on this planet, and there's no reason humans have more right to life than any other creature. You must clear the canvas once in a while. This is why religions like Hinduism have a god of preservation and destruction. But you keep putting destruction under such negative light. It's not bad, it's not worse than preservation. They're simply two forces of nature, or rather one possible dichotomy of natural force. I do not fear death, and I don't think anyone should. I live with death by my side at all times through the sheer fact that I exist in basic uncertainty. I have no certain thing to cling to, and all I am possibly able to be aware of is change in the first place. I'm not afraid of change. Not just growth and growth and growth like some crazy positive feedback loop. But homeostatic change, renewal. I see this as the highest good. And I do not fear death because I can't die. I am not my identity. I am not my memories. I am not my body. I am everything. Just because I experience only a fraction of existence through my perception doesn't mean this perception is the only thing I am.

As far as this defragging argument is concerned, let me put it differently. Someone who spends 30 years of their life learning to cook then 70 years learning to be an engineer would still have a fundamentally different view on reality than someone that spent 70 years learning to be an engineer then 30 years learning to cook. This is where the defragging argument falls apart. There's nothing wrong with either person, there's no junk information in their heads. But their shape of reality will still be completely unique.

Originally Posted by Alric

Aging and growing are not the same thing. The brain continues to grow because we can keep making new connections within our brain, while it deteriorate because of the accumulation of errors and junk in the cells of the brain. If you remove the accumulation of bad stuff, and allow the brain to continue to make new connections you can have a growing brain that doesn't age.

As I said before, yea everyone should fear death and I think most people do. Though we don't have that disabling fear of death, we find ways to cope with it. If you are living forever, then it isn't going to be a stress factor in your life because you know you can overcome death. You might still fear it some times, but it isn't going to be that disabling fear and it isn't going to cause stress in your life.

I find death very destructive, after all it kills people. I think life does bring renewal but you don't need death to have life. The problem I have is that you are basically saying that a persons life is meaningless because it becomes obsolete and so needs to be disposed of for the new to come in.

I have to ask why you think that though. I agree that each individual person is unique but why is the newer views better than the older views? Why does the old views need to be thrown out? You can have both views, you can have the new and old at the same time. There is no reason to get rid of the old. Killing old people doesn't make the newer people any better.

You can have a snowstorm of new snowflakes, without trampling all over the ones that have already fallen. You can be part of something greater without sacrificing yourself. That is my main problem with your line of thinking. You can have all these things without the death.

Why do you need the death? What does the destruction of past memories and thoughts gain anyone? That is what I don't see, I don't see a benefit of people dying. People dying doesn't add anything, it only subtracts.

It isn't like humans extract vital nutrients from the dead and we need dead bodies for the next generation to grow. We can still have new children and new ideas, we just need to pull back and do it more slowly if most people want to live forever. Give time for technology to increase the carrying capacity of the earth and then fill it as we go. You can have that increase in new life without the death.

Yet if someone stops ageing their body stops growing, usually, and yet either of us can be right just off the simple fact no one has ever stopped ageing before. I never said that fearing death would disable anything or cause stress, but the simple fact you can't deal with your mortality and want to prolong it just shows you fear it.

Death is not destructive at all, every part of the body and all energy in it is recycled, and I'm not talking about reincarnation because who knows what happens to my consciousness and soul, but I know the body that is left behind will serve a purpose, or at least should. saying you don't need death to have life is like saying you don't need an end to have a beginning, I never encountered something that only had either a beginning or an end.

And when a new snowstorm takes place the new flakes cover and build off of the old ones.

You die so that others can live, there is only so much space for everyone. I don't see anything being subtracted when people die, because there bodies are still there, and most likely they have told there stories to others, and nothing is lost because everything they did in life is still there.

You put to much faith in technology, We will never have the ability to increase the capacity of earth, how could we? Earth only has so much mass and so many things on it, We take oil from the ground, what do you think happens when we do that? we Leave holes that the oil supported but the oils gone. soon all the oil will be gone, and thats what we do with technology. Nothing just appears out of no where it must be taken from somewhere.

When winter comes and the trees shed their leaves, those trees don't actually die. Its a symbol of life and death that each spring the trees are reborn, but they never actually die. And that is the symbol I see, because a person can be reborn and change views many times in life without ever dying. Things happen and people change, things will always happen and things will always change. Dying isn't a necessarily part of that cycle.

I think those other examples are off, because those people would of still done those things. If you are being oppressed you stand up because you no longer want to be oppressed. You might put yourself in danger, but the danger isn't the cause. You might say I would rather die than be oppressed, but still dying isn't the cause. Living forever doesn't remove the real cause, which is the need to be free from oppression. All it does it allow you to stand up for change with less danger to yourself.

Like you keep saying, everyone is unique. If someone is one of a kind and they die there will never be a person like him again. He is gone forever. If life is important and everyone in unique why shouldn't we strive to preserve that?

When a person is gone their body, their feels, their hopes, their dreams, their goals, their experiences, their memories, they are all gone, forever. We can never get those back. When we lose all those things, how can we not call that destruction. Every day a person dies we lose something important, a unique perspective of the world.

As for the carrying capacity of the earth, we have a ton of physical room left on earth and we are no where near filling that physical space. Using current methods there is a very limited about of water to drink and that limits population. However with technology, we do something like desalination to remove salt from water. Which would give us more water than we could ever use. Our population could increase thousands of times what it is today. The same thing is true about all our needs, increasing food production though things like hydroponics. Increase energy though solar energy, it is renewable and if we get very good solar panels could provide all our energy. Technology most definitely increase how many people can survive on earth.