You are in a firefight. There are two sides to it, and you are on one of them. Your side comprises multiple people. You are shot in the head. The probability that the others on your side will also be shot has just increased.

Recognizing this is neither egoistic, controlling, or damaging.

It is not difficult to abstract this scenario to the entire world. What you do, and what is done to you, has consequences. These consequences do not evaporate upon your death, unless you are very purely solipsistic. You can choose to not care about these consequences, of course, but such apathy can fairly easily be framed as egoistic, controlling, or damaging.

I mean, what's the difference between "It's OK if I die, my family will survive" and "It's OK if I run away with another woman and stop supporting my children, my family will survive"?

I also doubt your assertion that "more often than not" death comes quickly. Of the friends and loved ones I've had die, the vast majority went through a long decline first. In fact, I can't think of anyone I know who went quickly.

The difference between the scenarios you present is voluntary action. I'm absolutely not proposing that you should pop off and go for a Burton, and actively try to leave your nearest and dearest in the lurch - rather that people are resilient, and life goes on, and that we must believe in those we are closest to. I have life insurance to at least ensure the financial safety of my family should I cease to be.

I'm sorry for your experiences - most of my loved ones have met violent ends or have died of mercifully swift illnesses. Some have lingered, painfully, and wished for but could not have euthanasia.

Perhaps there's an argument for voluntary euthanasia being legal purely in the idea that it comforts the living with the knowledge that they need never suffer a slow death in the future.

If you just want to say that your loved ones will survive, that life goes on without you, and you shouldn't be overly concerned about how the world will get on after you die, that's reasonable. But I completely and utterly disagree with going from that to "Fearing death is utterly irrational." Fearing death because of the negative consequences it will have on people you care about is completely rational.

If not, what is it that stops you, and why is it irrational for that same reason to make people not want to die of other causes?

I didn't say that not wanting to die is irrational, but that fearing death abstractedly is. Not wanting to die is rational from an anthropocentric/evolutionary biology point of view, as continuing life increases the odds of genetic and memetic propagation. It isn't rational, however, as an external observer might see it. I suppose it depends on what the "goal" of human life is. If it is simply "to be", then it's a self-fulfilling goal and of null value in an objective argument.

So - what stops me is that same instinct for preserving the self and/or ones genes. It does not mean, however, that I have not accepted the fact that I will, one day, die, and the fact that it really doesn't matter. I won't be here to care.

But, I'm a little confused, because

> The OP's net present value of future earnings is likely to be much bigger than $10

would seem like an argument against playing. So I'm not sure if you were trying to say something that went completely over my head?

This is probably the healthiest belief to have, but it's still an unfounded belief. How would one know this?

It doesn't bother me any more, as my premise was wrong. I came to realise that the only way the universe can know us is through us - and that the best record of any moment is that perception of it lent there and then to those who lived through it - but ultimately the retrospective reminiscence of a gone past is but a pale shadow of the real, the here and now.

Cherish life, and strive for the future for its own sake - but never forget that what matters is here and now.

Come to think of it, I think what most fear is not death, but having never lived.