Life is a vehicle for having pleasure. It is the pleasure that I would like to extend. Some pleasure inducing activities cause risk. So be it.
I do make choices regarding what activities I do, e.g. I do not eat copious diners nor smoke cigarettes. I eat healthy and take some supplements to try to extend my healthy lifespan so that I'm able to make choices what I do as long as possible. Regarding supplements, I do make an explicit choice to aim at the long term gain in health and less in short term improvements. Taking supplements for LE is a risk in itself, that I take, but only based on good research. Dubious research, no pils.
The question seems to be related to another thread where dying was seen as being deprived of life. For me, it's not the deprivation of life that prevails in my motivation, but it's aimed at the pleasure I can have while alive. The deprivation of life argument is far to negative and before you know it you become a sour individual forgetting the fun part of life. Deprivation of life is not the issue, after I die I'm not sufficiently conscious to notice it anyway. If I die at 100 having a lot of fun, I might be deprived of a theoretical extra 1000 years of life. I wouldn't mind the theoretical deprivation of life, but I would put a lot of effort to extend and enhance my living pleasure.
Extending
and enhancing living pleasure is my main goal. Not to avoid death at all cost.
At first, this seems a somewhat ego-centric view, but if your social environment thinks the same way about this, the principle stays, albeit just a bit more complex.
And regarding ego-centricity, I would avoid risks of having undesired influence on life of others as much as possible. Being emphatic is one of my pleasures so to speak.
Edited by Brainbox, 08 October 2011 - 11:44 AM.