Thread: Fear of death - A rational fear?

They both got my point. I was speaking of nature as the larger concept which is different from an ecosystem. Like I said nature has systems in it but it isn't a system itself. If an entire ecosystem collapses nature still exists in that area.

I also agree with them, that we are apart of nature. I don't see any reason why living and dying is supposed to be more natural than living forever.

How are humans not a gestalt in their own respect? They encompass multiple systems working harmoniously within them with no particular major goal except homeostasis. This is the same major goal of an ecosystem itself. So far it seems you're unable to point out any differences that are not completely arbitrary.

Let's talk about intelligence because it seems what you're driving at is humans are intelligent and nature is not. But that's like saying the human nervous system is intelligent and the immune system is not. The immune system has its own type of intelligence which works just as effectively at keeping us alive as the nervous system, but it doesn't have to think in order to do so. It only has to react and adapt, just as nature does.

So I think you're basing your assumption that humans are intelligent and an ecosystem is not on rather overrated criteria, which is thought. Human beings aren't even really that self-directed. We just have different ways of processing information. The ability to think is not the beginning and end of intelligence.

Reminds me of a quote by Richard Feynman,

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Yes it is. Intelligence is the ability to reason, learn and think. If you can't think you are not intelligent. Gravity isn't intelligent. The water cycle isn't intelligent. Chemical reactions and laws of physics are not intelligent. Ecosystems are not intelligent. Immune systems are not intelligent. Having a brain and thinking isn't an arbitrary difference. It is a super huge gigantic difference.

Again you are assign anthropomorphic traits to non-living concepts. Nature has nothing resembling intelligence, and what you are attributing to intelligence is just stuff following the natural laws of physics and doing things automatically. Only things with brains, like animals, have intelligence.

You're utilizing arbitrary criteria to prove your point. You have not yet explained why the way the nervous system processes information is intelligent and the way the immune system processes information is not. They have two different ways to process information, and your claiming the conditions the nervous system processes information through is the only intelligent way. But it's not. Your assumptions are completely baseless. You're using circular logic.

You can't just list a bunch of arbitrary qualities and explain that's what makes intelligence. You have to explain why, for example, the nervous system is more capable of directing the future of the world than the immune system. You have to explain what separates the way they process information that makes the nervous system better than the immune system. They both receive information and respond to it. Now why is the way the nervous system responds to information better than the immune system?

Also this, cause I thought it was funny

If i use the dictionary definition of words, then sure I can. It doesn't matter if you think they are arbitrary reasons or not, by the definition of intelligence, ecosystems and nature has no intelligence.

If you want to claim that an ecosystem has intelligence then you are going to have show how it fits into the definition of the words. Otherwise you are the one with an arbitrary definition of intelligence.

in·tel·li·gence   [in-tel-i-juhns] Show IPA
noun
1.capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2.manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3.the faculty of understanding.

learn·ing   [lur-ning] Show IPA
noun
1.knowledge acquired by systematic study in any field of scholarly application.
2.the act or process of acquiring knowledge or skill.
3.Psychology . the modification of behavior through practice, training, or experience.

un·der·stand·ing   [uhn-der-stan-ding] Show IPA
noun
1.mental process of a person who comprehends; comprehension; personal interpretation: My understanding of the word does not agree with yours.
2.intellectual faculties; intelligence; mind: a quick understanding.
3.superior power of discernment; enlightened intelligence: With her keen understanding she should have become a leader.

rea·son   [ree-zuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2.a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3.the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4.sound judgment; good sense.
5.normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

I thought I made this clear. Let me make it painstakingly obvious.

The thing we are arguing about is direction. You claimed that humans will direct life better than nature. You claimed that this was because humans were intelligent. You therefore have to back this claim up by stating why human intelligence is better than natural adaptation. I am being careful not to personify, to avoid starting another red herring. So I will not claim nature is intelligent but the fact is, you claimed that the nervous system handles information [i[better[/i] than the immune system (as an example) because you claimed that we should not let nature take the lead, but that we should take the reigns and choose our own destiny, choose our own future rather than let nature choose it for us.

So you still have to prove why the nervous system is more competent than the immune system, figuratively speaking. You have yet to explain why a road is better than a river. I explained that if we follow the river method, in the future we will see a humanity with more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses. We simply cannot predict what that would be, specifically. You are claiming if we were to decide for ourselves exactly what we want the future humanity to look like, that would be superior to allowing nature to guide us. Now tell me why. And don't fall back on circular logic that we have reasoning abilities nature does not. You cannot justify the ability to reason using reason itself.

For instance claiming that humans would be better off controlling their own destinies because we cured diseases that would not be cured otherwise is a way to start, and we could have a whole discussion just from that. Humans directed their destinies, cured disease, removed the consequences of disease. My retort to this would be that its arrogant that the ability to remove a disease is superior to the inability. And I would cite the forest fire example for this. A forest fire appears purely destructive but from it you open up a range of possibilities for the new forest which would otherwise be unobtainable and even unimaginable. For instance certain trees can't even sprout from their seeds without 450 degree heat to hatch them open (the terminology I used is incorrect but the example is valid). My argument is that you can't know what is precisely the best way to move forward, but nature, without even knowing, will automatically move forward in the best way. It will take longer but having the right direction forward is worth the patience, because the other option is being an impetuous child coaxing ideas that may or may not be destructive, without any certainty one way or another.

In other words humanity has no clue what the consequences of its actions are, and for our entire existence as Takers we have always believed we knew what was best, and we have been wrong. What makes us so much smarter now than the Colonists, who wiped out cultural history that would have been so majorly beneficial to us now? For instance if we adapted the Iroquois' style of government we would have half the political problems we do now. But back then, we didn't bother to think maybe these people had something beneficial to offer us, because they didn't believe in our God so they were automatically wrong. Our arrogance has caused so much destruction it's unfathomable to me that we could do a better job guiding ourselves forward than nature. And again, I'm not trying to say nature is guiding us forward with any sort of logistical reasoning. It's guiding us forward with something better than logistical reasoning. It guides us with pure, all encompassing humility. I'm personifying again but there's no other word I can grab to explain the way nature works. Nothing but pure natural movement contains the gestalt, and nothing but the gestalt is superior.

Originally Posted by Alric

I think you watched planet of the apes to often. Evolution is really slow, a creature can't just magically go from low level thinking to higher than us just like that. It takes time and so we would see it coming and we have such a huge head start they can't catch us.

Also humans are not the first ones to develop technology. The neanderthals were actually using tools before us, but we developed and overcame them, just like you were describing. The thing is when the humans overtook the neanderthals they were using very primitive technology. If they had the weapons we do today, it probably would of gone very differently.

Love your assumption but I've never seen It I don't really watch to many movies, and something could go higher then us if it were to evolve from us.

Secondly who's to say our technology isn't very primitive compared to what something else could or has come up with. Evolution is usually caused by a threat of some sort, if you follow the evolution theory where evolution doesn't involve bursts of evolution, and right now we are the biggest threat and cause for harm of other species. who knows maybe something developed the power to kill with its eyes while quickly evolving, or maybe they evolve to confuse the mind with there own, there are endless possibilities, humans are just to self-centred and egotistical to allow the thought of something being better or stronger then us.

take example the fish that evolved to not die in oil when BP had there oil spill, they evolved very quickly to withstand the threat and conquer it.

Originally Posted by Alric

I think you are the one with the misunderstanding of evolution, since you keep overstating how quickly changes can take place. One individual having a change, hardly means the entire species is going to change as well. Like I said many times before, since there is no advantage or disadvantages to most changes within humans, none of them are going to have a major impact, and none of them are likely to spread across the entire population.

Once again I'll refer you to the BP Oil spill, to show that under the right circumstances when species are endangered then we can evolve. one theory on this is all of the random bits and parts in our DNA that is there but not active, some scientists, I learned in school, believe that when a species is in danger it will turn the necessary ones on and the now useless ones off.

Originally Posted by Alric

Building the road is more difficult, and requires more energy to do. However we have control over where it goes. That to me is the most important thing. Instead of just following biological evolution to wherever it might go, we should take control of our own destinies.

sounds like a hitler quote, not saying your beliefs are like his, but to point out, if someone were they would probably create a super race and wipe the rest of us out.

Originally Posted by Alric

Living in the jungle, half staved, fighting animals to the death in the freezing cold winters and sweltering heat of the summers, dying of horrible flesh rotting diseases, never knowing your family because mothers die half the time in child birth, that life sucks..

Now who has watched too many movies. You do realise this wasn't an everyday thing before our major more recent advances in tech right. I mean sure some people went through hard time, but not everyone was suffering all the time. Just like today something would happen somewhere and people would have bad things happen to them. We still have people die from diseases, and we still have people that grow up not knowing there mothers, heres a new thing, overpopulation, enough money because the set up economy is bad. People in africa and suffer from many things even though we (supposedly) have the tech to help them, Its not that I don't have any faith in technology, humans no. they are greedy self-serving and always will be it seems. Maybe we should evolve out of that, because I don't think technology can change it our characteristics.

by the way sorry for so many posts I was gone for a couple days.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about humans having intelligence and thus being able to understand what we want, and having a choice in our evolution.

Nature is incapable of thinking and can not choose anything at all.

The nervous system isn't more competent than the immune system, it is however better at thinking because the immune system can not think. I still don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to understand.

It really doesn't matter what we do or think, our reasoning is always going to be better than that of something that can not reason at all.

Also that it isn't at all true that biological evolution is going to result in humans with more strengths and less weaknesses. That only occurs when there are strengths and weaknesses in term to survival, which we have most eliminated.

If a strength is only a strength in relationship to something other than survival, then evolution isn't going to favor it. In our current environment with our current technology all evolution is going to be entirely random, because nothing gives a person more advantage in breeding than anyone else has.

So we have human choice, or complete randomness.

Again, you are supporting yourself with circular logic. You are stating thought is superior because it is thought, reason is superior because it is reason. You are still not explaining why. Your argument is still just a couple steps away from a dogmatist, claiming your religion is better because it's true, and it's true because your religious book says it's true. You are overrating thought.

Nature is not random. Advantageous methods work, disadvantageous methods do not. Claiming anything other than the naturally advantageous method is superior is purely subjective. The only way to reach the truly advantageous method is through chaos. Not randomness, but pure potential, by encompassing every single possibility without considering one before another. That is nature, the whole. When water falls from a faucet it makes a perfectly round circle on the bottom of the sink. That is why the circle represents the whole. Because when nature moves, it distributes pressure in equal proportions. And this enables it to find the path of least resistance, the truly most efficient, most effective method to move forward.

You are overrating thought. Thought is nothing more than the processes that bubble up to conscious awareness from the depth of our gestalt. They don't mean anything superior, and if they do, then for fuck's sake explain why.

Originally Posted by Alric

I don't know what is so hard to understand about humans having intelligence and thus being able to understand what we want, and having a choice in our evolution.

You make it sound like we are the only animals capable of having intelligence and understanding what we want. How do we have a choice in our evolution as of right now?

Originally Posted by Alric

Nature is incapable of thinking and can not choose anything at all.

Natural-Selection. hmm seems like it kinda resembles nature selecting.

Originally Posted by Alric

The nervous system isn't more competent than the immune system, it is however better at thinking because the immune system can not think. I still don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to understand.

It really doesn't matter what we do or think, our reasoning is always going to be better than that of something that can not reason at all.

yet they are combined and benefit off each other.

Once Again Human Ego and Self-Centeredness is what you are displaying by saying your better than something thats been in place and still in place, for as long as humans have been here is less than a blink of the eye for nature, nature doesn't care that we think of ourselves as superior, all animals probably do or did at some point. We are still a part of nature its where we started and came from, to say we are not from nature is to say we are not from earth really.

Originally Posted by Alric

Also that it isn't at all true that biological evolution is going to result in humans with more strengths and less weaknesses. That only occurs when there are strengths and weaknesses in term to survival, which we have most eliminated.

Strengths right now= Intelligence, yes that is one of our strengths, our brain power, Weaknesses= Ego, Fear, Jealousy, most emotions actually, which all really leads to war, So were a pretty big threat to ourselvess, trying to survive each other in a way.

Originally Posted by Alric

If a strength is only a strength in relationship to something other than survival, then evolution isn't going to favor it. In our current environment with our current technology all evolution is going to be entirely random, because nothing gives a person more advantage in breeding than anyone else has.

and yet humans from different regions around the world were born with different traits, and some have certain weaknesses and strengths and some are just random as hell pointless traits and others are coded into our DNA and we have no clue what they do or why they aren't active, and yes some people do have advantage of breeding, because problems breeding are hereditary in some cases as well as cancer, heart disease and other things, so really we are evolving still to protect ourselves from diseases, which are a threat.

Originally Posted by Alric

So we have human choice, or complete randomness.

Human choice or complete randomness its really no different, we are just as chaotic and ordered, ugly and beautiful as the nature from which we sprung.

Evolution isn't normally random because of natural selection and pressure put on species. The pressure ensures that when one group has an advantage over another they will more often breed and are more likely to survive.

In humans, that is no longer the case. There are very few pressures on us, and so there are no advantages or disadvantage. For example, not having legs is most definitely a disadvantage. However if a person is born without legs they will still survive, and can even have children. If someone is born with below average IQ, that is a weakness but they can still survive and have children. So right now there is no evolution in a forward direction towards becoming better at anything. We are just becoming more diverse.

In fact, the more successful a human is today, the less likely they are to have children. Birthrates in modern developed countries are a lot lower than in poorer countries. So if evolution was to take its course, it would actually select for people who are the most disadvantage, because they have more children. So actually if left to run its course we would have fewer strengths and more weaknesses.

This is why I think thought is superior to non-thought. We all know that making people less intelligent so they are forced to have more children, because those children are needed to take care of you when your older is a bad thing compared to just taking medicine and being healthy. Evolution can't think though, it doesn't know anything. And so natural selection says, the people who are falling behind have the most children, so they have discovered an advantage. Then we evolve with people becoming stupider.

Originally Posted by Alric

Evolution isn't normally random because of natural selection and pressure put on species. The pressure ensures that when one group has an advantage over another they will more often breed and are more likely to survive.

In humans, that is no longer the case. There are very few pressures on us, and so there are no advantages or disadvantage. For example, not having legs is most definitely a disadvantage. However if a person is born without legs they will still survive, and can even have children. If someone is born with below average IQ, that is a weakness but they can still survive and have children. So right now there is no evolution in a forward direction towards becoming better at anything. We are just becoming more diverse.

In fact, the more successful a human is today, the less likely they are to have children. Birthrates in modern developed countries are a lot lower than in poorer countries. So if evolution was to take its course, it would actually select for people who are the most disadvantage, because they have more children. So actually if left to run its course we would have fewer strengths and more weaknesses.

This is why I think thought is superior to non-thought. We all know that making people less intelligent so they are forced to have more children, because those children are needed to take care of you when your older is a bad thing compared to just taking medicine and being healthy. Evolution can't think though, it doesn't know anything. And so natural selection says, the people who are falling behind have the most children, so they have discovered an advantage. Then we evolve with people becoming stupider.

Yeah I know this, I was actually taught this by the music video Evolution by Korn. But it also says that smart people are more likely to be with smart people and lower IQ people with Lower IQ too. Just because the Low IQ people are having more kids doesn't really mean that that is where the whole species is going, no what I see here a split, starting to divide. If Evolution were true then that would mean that a species could evolve into two separate species, and to say that is wrong is to say all dogs are the same, sure there all dogs, but some are better at certain things some are stronger or smarter, in fact Dogs are really the longest going genetic experiment, because of how quick they can change, and how long people have been breeding them to come about these changes and try to get the perfect dog for what they want.

I'm not really sure what you meant by this sentence "We all know that making people less intelligent so they are forced to have more children, because those children are needed to take care of you when your older is a bad thing compared to just taking medicine and being healthy." I don't get the beginning. any ways though some stupid people have a lot of kids and still take the medicine, but taking medicine doesn't really make you better, I have no faith in it really because every time I had to go to the hospital as a child what they gave me never really helped, and vaccinations and the other stuff that supposedly helps us, was forced on me to make it through public schoolings, but Our Politicians children are not required to take them.

Finally you say that natural selection says the stupid people are winning or something along those lines, but your not natural selection how could you know, if there were to be a divide there would be stupid people that are breeding quicker, so yeah they would have a number advantage, but then there would also be smart people who would not be having so many kids, but there smart so if they needed to they could and then they would be smarter, a really great advantage in any situation.

Originally Posted by Alric

Evolution isn't normally random because of natural selection and pressure put on species. The pressure ensures that when one group has an advantage over another they will more often breed and are more likely to survive.

In humans, that is no longer the case. There are very few pressures on us, and so there are no advantages or disadvantage. For example, not having legs is most definitely a disadvantage. However if a person is born without legs they will still survive, and can even have children. If someone is born with below average IQ, that is a weakness but they can still survive and have children. So right now there is no evolution in a forward direction towards becoming better at anything. We are just becoming more diverse.

In fact, the more successful a human is today, the less likely they are to have children. Birthrates in modern developed countries are a lot lower than in poorer countries. So if evolution was to take its course, it would actually select for people who are the most disadvantage, because they have more children. So actually if left to run its course we would have fewer strengths and more weaknesses.

This is why I think thought is superior to non-thought. We all know that making people less intelligent so they are forced to have more children, because those children are needed to take care of you when your older is a bad thing compared to just taking medicine and being healthy. Evolution can't think though, it doesn't know anything. And so natural selection says, the people who are falling behind have the most children, so they have discovered an advantage. Then we evolve with people becoming stupider.

Despite what you may have learned from the movie Idiocracy (or a Korn video, ffs), IQ is not declining because "anyone can now breed". IQ test averages have increased over time.

https://www.americanscientist.org/is...ge=4&css=print

Also you directly equate success with living in the industrialized west, that people in poor countries have more babies therefore our weaknesses are propagating. You seem to say that our seemingly superior political and social situation is a result of the sum total of all our meritorious traits, and not historical artifact. The truth is that for the vast majority of people, their actual personal "fitness" (however you want to define it) has nothing to do with the stability of their country, or vice versa.

Jewish people have nominally high IQs, look at how many famous scientists they've bred.

IndieAnthias, of course people are not getting stupider because of evolution. Evolution takes a very long time. I been the one all along saying it would take hundred of thousands of years and what we currently have hasn't been around any where near that long. Intelligence have been going up because education is improving. Did you miss repeatedly when I said over and over again that humans are not currently evolving because we removed all pressures that promote evolution?

I said if we are evolving then it would be towards weaknesses we have and not strength, since the more problems you have the more likely you are to be poor and thus have more children.

There could be a divide like Zeracook is saying, but currently everyone who is pushing technology forward is advancing technology and education of everyone, and we are giving medicine to everyone. And really all you need is one break, and some good education and you can easily move up the IQ ladder.

Originally Posted by Alric

Did you miss repeatedly when I said over and over again that humans are not currently evolving because we removed all pressures that promote evolution?

I didn't miss it, I just don't agree with it.

Measuring selection in contemporary human populations : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
The 10,000 Year Explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Alric

We all know

I want to address your point at large but I'm quoting this as an example of the subjective imperfection of an ego driven world. When we know something is true, we deny the potential of its opposite. By denying the potential of the opposite, you no longer have the equal distribution of pressure that water does, and therefore you can no longer find the route of least resistance when moving forward. Because considering all things equally enables you to find the path of least resistance, it is superior to ego-driven, divisive designs. The moment you claim we all know something is the moment you become a cultural dogmatist. It doesn't matter if what you say is supported by cultural conditioning or not. I go back to the forest fire example to back me up. We don't know what we don't know, and we don't know the consequences. But the gestalt will flow forward, and it will flow forward along the most efficient possible route. And the only reason it can do so is because it cannot possibly judge things as positive or negative, or true or false. By judging things like that, we disable our ability to find the most efficient and effective way forward.

With this idea, it's rather irrelevant what kind of evidence I can come up with to break down your idiocracy argument, because even if I cannot find a single thing to support it, I'm still arguing based on our cultural conditions which sit in certain judgments and therefore do not consider the gestalt the way nature does. In other words for me to argue against the idiocracy theory I first have to agree that an idiocracy would be bad, meaning I already place this argument in the context of the ego-driven environment. But I already stated I think that considering everything impartially is superior to considering things judgmentally, so there's not really any point in addressing anything you begin with the words "We all know." I don't know, I'm not that smart. I can't tell what is truly advantageous. I can't tell which way forward is truly most efficient or effective. I'm a subjective mind, and my perception of reality is very limited. That's why I trust nature, because it's designed to encompass any possibility without limiting itself by unwarranted conditions such as culturally imposed morals. Culturally imposed morals, after all, are not the beginning and end of some objective sort of morality. Not too long ago, if you lived in certain areas, it would be considered morally disgraceful to free a slave. People held that in the same light as theft. In the book, Huckleberry Finn, Huck is haunted by guilt for freeing a slave throughout the whole story. Things change, which is why we can't start an argument about the superiority of ego or non-ego by agreeing on an ego-based premise.

Now for your other points, which I will address to satisfy your ego. Keep in mind I consider this all a red herring because by arguing these things I am agreeing with the premise that we know something for certain, but my only logical conclusion about life is uncertainty. That being said, natural change has not been derailed by modern society. As Indie said, it's untrue we're headed to an idiocracy. If it were true I couldn't say for certain whether that was a bad thing or a good thing, because it'd be a natural thing, only considered bad by our transitory sense of the word. But it's also not the trend. As people become more educated, they have less children. As nations are developing, they move in this direction. Furthermore, the amount of food does not increase as people have more children, meaning no matter how many children one single poor, uneducated family has, it will not increase the amount of poor, uneducated people worldwide because they've all got to compete for a finite resource. Becoming educated, you increase your chances at success meaning you increase your accessibility to food and with it, your security. This means educated people are less likely to starve.

And finally, it's not as simple as genetic evolution, there's also ideological evolution. This is essentially a nature vs nurture argument, which is hard to make because the two have such a strange, transactional relationship. If you don't believe me, take a class on ethology. Anyways, the way ideas spread from mind to mind is not as simple as taking notes in a classroom and bam you know something. That's a sophistic way of looking at things and if it were true, then perhaps we could just keep the same people around for ever and it wouldn't matter. In reality we learn more from observation than from concepts. We learn more through apprenticeship, as an example, than through lecture. Again, I'm not trying to claim you can fill the cup, we can acquire a nearly infinite amount of information. But it's not just information, it's habit. Habits are hard to break. And certain habits conflict with other habits. But neither habit is better. They're just different. This concept is known as memeology, the evolution of memes. ethology looks at the connection between memes and biology, but memeology just looks at the spread of habits themselves. I can't say for certain if we require transitory generations for this sort of evolution to function the way it does, but ethology leads me to believe we do. It also appears as though people may learn more as they age, but once they have acquired their habits, these habits become more and more difficult to change. For instance people tend to like the same music they did when they were 20. It's rare to see an elderly person enjoying dubstep. People also tend to like the same clothing style they did when they were in their 30s, and it's rare to see an elderly person sagging their pants. You can claim loose pants and techno are irrelevant changes, but I would claim the opposite. I think cultural change is profoundly important to the evolution of our species and I think it requires transitory generations to achieve it because once a person settles into their comfort zone, they pay less attention to the phases of culture.

See the problem with that, is that you keep saying you are objective but you are really not. You say we don't know everything, and we can't know everything so it is best to leave it to nature. However leaving it to nature is a decision you are making. You are making that decision with no way of knowing if it is the better one or not.

In fact letting nature handle things isn't the path of least resistance at all. Humans have developed brains and have built in empathy for each others, and animals. This empathy is made even stronger through cultural views. So any attempt to get humans to reject their emotions and empathy for each other would face a vast amount of resistance.

So not only is rejecting technology and letting nature take its course going counter to the path of least resistance, but saying that we should do so, requires you to make a decision that no longer allows you to claim you are impartial in this matter.

I agree with all of that except the concept that I claimed to represent any sort of objective viewpoint. Which I did not. Technology is a piece of the natural way, as well, for in our own struggle to be more efficient and effective, we developed technology.

But the crux of my argument is that it would be wise (not objectively good, just wise in my subjective mind) to stop assuming we know so much about what is superior. We would become a better species if we allowed ourselves to flow forward in a more natural way rather than thinking we'll do better by controlling every single aspect of our lives. We would do better if we understood our transitory morals are not the beginning and end of some objective morality.

In other words we would be a superior species if we learned to be a little more humble.

I would generally agree with that, however there is a difference between being humble and lacking all confidence in yourself. I would say I am a humble person in most regards, though I feel fairly confident that being alive is better than being dead. Since you are unable to do anything, or think anything, or feel anything while dead, logic would seem to suggest that being alive is a superior state for a conscious being.

At least in most cases. There may be some states where being alive isn't as good such as if you are always in extreme pain. So I don't claim that it is always true, but it seems true most of the time and in enough cases that it is well worth trying to live forever.