> it should most certainly not be treated as inevitable.

What life never dies?

What non-living thing does not change?

There is a pine tree that is almost 5,000 years old, and a number of plants "reproduce" by spreading out their root system where what we see as a multitude of plants is essentially one long-lived organism under the surface.

For humans (or at least for me), I think the main concern is really more of continuity of experience than maintaining a particular body configuration indefinitely. I.e. I would like to run into an old friend in 10,000 years and reminisce about that time we did something hilarious. It wouldn't be very satisfying to undergo a procedure that resets my body but wipes out my memories in the process.

It wouldn't be very satisfying to undergo a procedure that resets my body but wipes out my memories in the process.

We whipe out memories every day. Your memory of your childhood is a half imagined highlight reel of moments. If you lived 10,000 years, you might only have a couple moments left from this century.

Do you think of cancer as inevitable? Or do you think of it as something humans could cure someday?

Do you think of degenerative mental disorders as inevitable? Or do you think humans can cure them someday?

I don't think of death as inevitable. I think of it as something humans can cure someday. Thinking of it as inevitable means giving up on all possible solutions.

> Do you think of cancer as inevitable?

No.

> Do you think of degenerative mental disorders as inevitable?

No.

Change, and thus, death, is inevitable. Also, if you want to prolong you then you are the result of countless deaths.

I think you've used an unconventional definition of "death" here, distinct from the one thus far used in this discussion.

Lack of change seems closer to death than change does.

But in any case, whatever definition of death you've used doesn't seem to relate in any way to the ones that people in this discussion have advocated eliminating.

> I think you've used an unconventional definition of "death" here,

I mean the thing that everybody else means: ie "pushing up daisies", "feeding earthworms", "to dust", etc

If I understand this differently, then it's this perspective I am offering :)

In that context, saying that change causes death sounds like complete nonsense. I change all the time, yet I am not dead.

Everything changes => inevitability of death.

If you 'survive' (say every cell is replaced) then what is "you"? I'd say it's more likely to be a set of linguistic & cultural norms than it is to be anything fundamental from the view point of physics.

So that raises the point: is 'you' conceptual or is there anything fundamental? It makes sense for evolution to have selected for organisms to believe there was, no matter what, something fundamental, existant & worth preserving about them, but really - we're this group of cells & the plants we ate for breakfast (and the efforts of the farmer of those plants and so on)

Of course, as a "manner of speaking" (that is, in common every day culturally contingent world), all this is bogus.

But from a fundamental, naturalistic point of view, I don't see anywhere else to go :) It's also a very parsimonious view as you get to explain a lot of stuff with less entities, etc :)