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 :)