"life simply is, and as such, has a beginning and an end..."

"it is in what is done with the living, making a flourishing of it, which counts..."

" "wanting" a death? no more than "wanting" a fairy godmother... am simply not concerned with it..."

“Michael, face reality.  Everybody dies.”

Hi Laure, thanks for your comments.  First off I would say that I am not the one here evading reality, that in fact Robert Malcolm is the one evading reality.  Is your life your highest value?  If so, what are you doing to further it?  Most of us wear our seatbelts and look before crossing the street, but beyond that most people end up justifying death with some abstract metaphor such as the ones that Robert Malcolm likes to use.  This thread and the other one linked earlier show many of these comments, which I assert are philosophical acceptances of death as something fundamentally ok.  The main point of all my comments is that philosophical acceptance of death is something that undermines the very idea of defeating it, of doing anything about it.  When you say everybody dies you absolve yourself of ever having to do anything about it, because you simultaneously assert that 1) you are supposed to die and or 2) there is nothing you can do about it anyway.  Men have also said 'Face reality, heavier than air machines can not fly' etc. and have thus justified never trying to accomplish the things they presume are impossible anyway or just plain not right for humans to do for whatever reason.

Now the fact that people readily wear seat belts, look before crossing the road, and go to the doctor when they are sick illustrate that in many cases people do act in a manner that furthers their own life, but only to an extent.  Beyond that, they appeal to religions, dystopian futures, or abstract nonsense to justify dying, eventually.  The result of all this is that while we live longer and better lives, the concept of an indefinite life span remains something most people are opposed to.  That opposition, as is illustrated here by responses to my comments in this thread and the previous one, is common.  Why do I receive such strong visceral reaction when I merely try to argue that one should not want to die? 

There is a huge difference between philosophically accepting death as something natural, as the end which gives the beginning meaning, etc and something that you would prefer not to happen but do not want to focus your life on fighting because the chance of payoff is so low.  People who do not understand the difference lack an appreciation for the importance of philosophy in life.  The people in the former category *are* pro death in some manner, the people in the later are not.  They would prefer to live, but see it as having no option in the matter.  By his comments it seems that Robert Malcolm, does, eventually want to die, because ‘life is, and things that are have beginnings and ends, there fore life has an end’ (paraphrasing)  I have never asserted that people who do nothing about death but in fact would prefer not to die are ‘pro death’ and this is primarily because they would not ever oppose other people doing something about death.  The people of the former category, Mr. Malcom and others who have posted, ‘bio ethicists’ like Leon Kass and such, would act to ensure that because they think death serves a value and that all humans must eventually die and that it is fundamentally wrong to do something about aging and death.  They *are* pro death.  I hope I have made the difference as I see it clear.

“The closest anyone has come to immortality is living, what, 130 years or so?”

So since no one has ever done it before than it proves no one will ever do it?  The same could be said of every single medical, technological, scientific, and philosophical innovation ever made in the history of the world.

“If you want to devote your life to the study of life extension, that's fine.  But condemning people for accepting the reality of death is wrong.”

I agree with you absolutely, and I challenge you to find in my comments where I said that people not doing anything about death *and* not wanting to die are in fact *pro death* (in fact I elaborated on my distinction between the two in the previous thread linked earlier)  However, I am startled by the sheer percentage of people here who do not want to do anything about death because they think death serves some purpose, and nothing should be done about it.  The fact that the vast majority of people are not philosophically opposed to death (even the majority here it seems, who profess to hold their own life as their highest value) is one of the major reasons why so little has been done in combating death overall. 

I completely understand that we all make compromises in our lives between what we want to see the world be like (and ourselves) and what we are practically able to accomplish (another point I think I elaborated on in the other thread)  I do not assert people need to devote their life to defeating aging and death and if they do not they are pro-death, but I do assert that the should make sure their conceptions of the likelihood of accomplishing something are based on facts and reason and not the biases of the pro-deathists that have dominated philosophy and culture for all of man’s history.  Being admirers of Rand I am sure we can all agree on the effects that come from the domination of cultural attitudes through philosophy.  There are other things one can do, like supporting organizations which are attempting to defeat aging and being vocal about the desire to want to live an indefinite lifespan, especially in situations where one hears someone justifying death or defending philosophically.  The first step however is to get rid of the philosophical acceptance of death, all else follows naturally.  Some might take up the battle themselves, since again we are all admirers of Rand I think most here recognize the great things that individuals can accomplish even in the face of overwhelming opposition. 

“When I was a kid, I wondered why we had to go to the bathroom.  Why weren't scientists trying to fix this defect in human beings?  It's gross, and it's a waste of time.  Shouldn't we be able to "burn up" 100% of what we eat and drink, so that we would no longer have to poop?  How do you feel about this, Michael?  Do you agree with my childhood musings?  Or are you actually pro-pooping?  You must actually LIKE going to the bathroom if you aren't actively engaged in the battle to eliminate the need for, uh, elimination!”

Given the previous delineation I have elaborated on between being pro-death and being pro-life, I hope you understand then what my answer would be.  But in case I was unclear (as I often am) I do not place the eradication of the need to defecate high on my priority scale, however, I would not oppose efforts to eradicate such a thing, it is gross and contributes to poor sanitary conditions.   So now you tell me, am I pro-pooping ?

Regards

Michael F Dickey