Is or is not an indefinite lifespan-- a lifespan that may be continued indefinitely at the pleasure of the individual --the ideal state of a thinking, rational being?

Michael Stuart Kelly said:

“loved your article. I do believe that accepting anything but reality will always be the wrong way to go.”

Indeed, I always repeat that Rand saying that I do not get by through faking reality in any manner whatever, and I work hard to fully integrate this principle into my life.  Yet Tibor in his essay says “who taught that all that fretting about one’s death is pretty useless and is merely going to contribute to making one’s life more unhappy than it has to be” Is that not just a manner of ignoring reality?  The reality is that you are going to die, that everyone you love will die, that you will cease to exist.  How do you not ‘fret’ about that?  To not fret about it is to pretend that it is not going to happen or to convince yourself that it isn’t so bad a thing.  The first obligation of a prisoner is to find a way to escape.  The highest value to all here is their life and their existence.  The biggest threat to your existence, your highest value, is death through aging.  Why are you not looking for your escape? 

“Part of getting older is a creeping decadence. You can ignore it and you can rail against it, but it happens to all of us who are lucky enough to get there.”

That does not mean one should sit back and welcome it.  Or do nothing to avoid it, which is what is being advocated here.

“striving to have a good youth, a good middle age, a good decadence and a good death is the most selfish thing a human being can do”

Striving to have a good DEATH is the most selfish thing one can do?  Not striving to avoid death?  How is dying selfish?...when it is the destruction of the self.  Well, we were all raised in a culture of religious deathists, so I cant expect these ideas to be welcomed with open arms. 

I am confused by something you wrote:

... don't expect me to sit around while this thread works to convince objectivists that they should be thankful for the time they have and accept death as the end which gives the beginning meaning.

1. I didn't see anyone on this thread, nor Tibor in his article, try to convince anyone that they should be thankful for the time they have, although I do feel that fostering an emotion of general gratitude towards existence is very healthy

It is a general attitude and response from religious deathists.  They do whatever they can to convince themselves that dying isn’t so bad, because to convince themselves it is bad requires them to act against it.  This is what I have seen here so far:

“Whenever I consider that experience I realize that all this is borrowed time for me”

 

“All things are impermanent: love, the internet, good wines, a child's laughter...but really it is the impermanence of these things that make them special”

 

“The ending of something is not the destruction of something, but the conclusion of it - life by its nature has to have a conclusion, just as it has a beginning.....”

 

“a person with a good outlook on life will gradually come to terms with the fact that he or she will die and, while never abandoning the quest for living and, indeed, for thriving, such a person will not protest or concoct fantasies in order to manage the fact of impending death”

 

“who taught that all that fretting about one’s death is pretty useless and is merely going to contribute to making one’s life more unhappy than it has to be.”

   --------

“2. I didn't see anyone on this thread, nor Tibor in his article, try to convince anyone to "accept death as the end which gives the beginning meaning."
Who are you arguing against?”

To which Robert Malcom said

“Yes - he seems to totally miss the point, that death is a part of life, just as birth is a part of life”

Thanks for clarifying Robert.  That in addition to the previously posted comment “really it is the impermanence of these things that make them special”  demonstrates what I am talking about. 

*I* am missing the point, that death is *a part of* life?  Hey, so is suffering.  Hey, so is sadness.  Hey, so is sickness.  So let’s all bow down, apologize for our existence, and accept whatever disease, ailment, or injury comes our way because it is *a part of life*.  No thanks.  As I said, all the defenses presented her for accepting death are no different than the usual mantra prattled about defending altruism and self sacrifice and any manner of ridiculous philosophies that have been preached through the ages.

Joe M. said:

“The idea that Robert M. offered as death being a "conclusion" is nice”

Dying is nice?

“and I don't think it invalidates Rand's life worship to consider dying, either.”

Right, because you should only worship your life for the ‘natural’ number of years, and then no longer worship it.

“I remember a science fiction story where mankind did achieve longevity, and as a result, life became meaningless. Without death, there were no challenges, no risks, boredom sets in.”

There are plenty of science fiction stories where people actually enjoy living, and do not need to constantly risk death to recognize what a wonderful thing life is.  This attitude is the same one that drives people to be upset with their loving family and children and go climb rocks or mountains, sky dive, bridge jump, partake in extreme life risking events, etc.  I bet you aren’t giving up your wealth so you can truly know what its like to be poor, and thus truly appreciate being not poor.  Why is everyone so adamant on using this justification for death?  Because we were all raised as religious deathists. 

“I can appreciate Objectivism's "sun worship" and philosophy of life, but I can't help but think it would mean nothing without a conclusion”

Again, it has no meaning without an end.  Hey, why don’t you try it out for a few thousand years, if you don’t like it, kill yourself.  Why is 100 years and then an end good, but not 1,000 years?  Or 10,000 years? 

We live on a planet where everyone has convinced themselves that it is ok to die, and thus have purged the desire to actually do anything about their ‘inevitable’ demise.  Its ok, they say, it’s natural, it gives our lives meaning, every beginning must have an end, change is good, immortality would be boring.  All conveniently excusing yourselves from doing anything about dying.  You are all saying “I want to die” and nothing more.  Try saying “I want to live”

What can you do about aging?  Most importantly, dispense with the philosophical acceptance of death as something that is OK, it is the very fact that it is widely accepted which perpetuates its existence.  Sign up for cryogenic suspension, it’s no sure bet, but it is a hell of a lot better than being pumped with embalming fluid and turning into worm food.  You can pay for it with your life insurance policy.  Donate time, money, and energy to organizations that work toward extending life.  Read every book you can find on the topic of senescence and cancer.  There are millions of books out there screaming to be read, the answers are in them, waiting for someone to find the connections and make that discovery.  Do something!

Michael F Dickey

“…You must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes you desires away from your reach and drains your life out of your body.” - Ayn Rand

Robert Malcolm said. 

“No - we DON'T live on a planet where everyone says it's ok to die - that is the point - dying is feared, not taken as a natural.. “

That’s funny, because almost every comment in this whole entire thread is comprised of people saying it is OK to die. 

“You yourself call it a 'shackle'  - well, so is  flapping your arms and not being able to fly....”

Yet men have built great machines and now routinely take to the air.  I am sure many naysayers said to the Howard Roark’s of the day that it is not natural for men to fly and to just be content with their two legs. 

Build yourself a jetpack http://www.technologie-entwicklung.de/Gasturbines/Monocopter/body_monocopter.html - http://www.technologie-entwicklung.de/17-suit1.jpg

Michael Stuart Kelley said:

“I was going to get into a rational discussion on this, but you post is WAY TOO LONG and WAY TOO EMOTIONAL. You spout off completely misinterpreted conclusions as if they were facts, call people on this thread "religious deathists" and whatnot”

If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and looks like a duck…  It is amazing the negative reaction I get from simply encouraging people to love their lives and live it and fight for the continuation of their own existence.  Death and dying is a very emotional subject, I am sorry you do not feel it deserves the emotional significance I attach to it.  Our emotions are the logical projections of our deepest convictions, if you are OK with dying, then you do not value your own existence. 

“What is a good death? From a selfish perspective? I would say it is facing death with dignity and without guilt or cowardice when the time comes. Not embracing it, mind you. Not even not going down fighting. It is being aware of it.”

On that I agree with you.  One can accept that one WILL die, and not cry and wail and moan about it.  But you should never be deeply fundamentally at ease with the cessation of your existence.  There is a huge difference between saying that since things die we shouldn’t try to do anything to fight death and acknowledging that you are about to die.

“Pretending that death does not exist at the time to die is the coward's way. It is not the way I would ever choose to check out. I will not die with a lie on my lips.”

Who ever advocated pretending death does not exist?  Would you live with a lie on your lips?  If you assert your own life to be your highest value, why are you not fighting with your very soul to defeat your greatest enemy?  Are you sitting back, hoping someone else might defeat that enemy?  Content in the thought that if that enemy was not defeated, oh well, you had a good run?  I am sure you put effort into furthering other values, how much effort are you putting into defeating your murderer?  Saying no one man can make a difference is a cop out for justifying inaction, and a completely egregious thing to be coming from the lips of an objectivist.

“From the tone and length of your writing on this thread, and from the complete misunderstanding of what everybody has been saying, I gather that dying scares the living shit out of you”

What have I misunderstood?  It’s pretty clear that the vast majority of people in this thread are a’ ok with ceasing to exist, and some in strange twisted ways feel it actually gives value to the very values it destroys.  If dying scares the living shit out of me, then living clearly scares them to death.  However, dying does not ‘scare’ me, I recognize completely what it is and as such want to do whatever I can to stave it off as long as possible.  I do not want to die, it is as simple as that.  I value my own existence and want to prolong it as much as possible.  If you see something threatening you, you identify it and work to negate it’s effects.  This has many other implications too, most directly in contemplating risk management and identifying the things that are actually likely to kill you and work to avoid those.  My dearest friend is a Hospice nurse (as I have said in other threads)  so I am intimately familiar with death (and have seen friends and loved ones die), as we routinely discuss her patients and she loses around 2 per week.  When she comes over and says “God I have this patient, I wish she would just die!” pretty deep conversations are bound to arise.  I told her early on to not expect comfort from death from me, there is no comfort in it, it is the greatest transgression of existence.  She sees every variety, people who are completely at ease with their deaths, people who fight it with every ounce of their strength to their very last breath, people who are newly religious and people who feel even more justified in their atheism. 

Lance said:

“Your implications that the understanding of mortality/immortality should be easy is arrogant and inconsiderate.”

I never said defeating death and aging would be easy.  But just because it is hard, in fact probably the hardest thing man will accomplish, doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try.  ‘That is too difficult’ is not an objection I expect to be coming from objectivists. 

“The answer to each of your questions is yes. Until we experience a degree of enslavement or poverty or faith we know nothing of freedom, wealth, and reason.”

Interesting, I wonder what other objectivists participating in this thread think of this comment?   Must we be poor to truly appreciate wealth?  Must I be bound in chains to truly appreciate (or want, to make the analogy more appropriate) freedom?  Must we burn our hands to truly appreciate the absence of burning flesh?   Your analogy is also flawed in the sense that in all these instances that faculty of perception still exists.  We can not perceive a state of non-existence, and thus could never compare it to a state of existence, and as such it could never give one a greater appreciation of existence. 

“I'm optimistic that great minds will one day slow the aging process and I welcome it. But you can still get hit by a bus. Contemplating the end of your existence will always have a value because it is a part of reality.”

Of course, anyone involved in this area of thought is well aware of the risks of death not associated with aging.  Some people envision themselves being uploaded into computers, others becoming integrated with computers, still others generally retaining their human form but increasing their strength and endurance through enchantments, either biological or technological.  Wearing a powered exoskeleton, for instance, that is comfortable and durable can do wonders against being hit by buses.  See for example http://www.improb.com/news/2002/may/troy-new-suit.html Troy inside his bear suit has sustained numerous collisions with vehicles going up to 30 mph. 

“Also, after 1,000 years or 37,000 years I might well find living to have become a bore. It's impossible to say because I haven't experienced anything remotely like being 37,000 years old. Neither have you. You are making claims about an existence that you have no experience with”

What claims have I made about an existence I have no experience with?  If you get bored after 37,000 years feel free to kill yourself.  But to accept death on the presumption that you WILL be bored if you lived anything beyond the ‘natural’ life expectancy is an absurd thing to do. 

Michael F Dickey