"There is a fine line between pessimism and realism."
There most definitely is indeed. A "realist", in regards to our discussion, would be one who realizes that there is the possibility of negative and positive. You are pessimistic in that you are only looking at the negative. The fact of the matter is that there is a whole lot of positive out there, and you are simply choosing to overlook it in favor of the portion that is wrong/negative. The question is why?.. I am guessing, as someone else already pointed out, an underlying bit of depression. With so much to enjoy and experience, why get overly caught up in the bad/negative? Life/living is only continuing to get more and more enjoyable. I love life. Therefore, why wouldn't I want to continue to live? Death will come eventually but not yet. So for now I will choose to be optimistic and look at all that is good. And let me tell you, there is an overwhelming amount of good. Luckily with future technology, which is quickly becoming a reality, I will get to experience a lot more of it (hopefully 200-500 years worth). However, if death were to come sooner - so be it. But I still see no reason not to work towards radical life extension and such.
"It is rather ironic that you mention Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death. I am well acquainted with Becker. The neurosis of thinking one will or can cheat death and unfathomably dire ramifications that ensue on a civilizational/cultural level, were what the book was about. The more apropos paradox that he describes is that one can only live fully when the complete accept their mortality.
Ultimately, the philosophy that most espouse here is entirely antithetical to his position. Longecity may be a perfect distillation of an extreme example death-anxiety neurosis...in action."
Once again, I feel that you're just putting a negative twist on the subject. Why can't one accept their mortality but still work towards longevity? I am spiritual, and I'm quite 'excited' for the possible adventure that awaits me after death. (Yes, I realize this thought process as well as my spirituality may be subconscious coping mechanisms) However, I still don't see why one who loves/enjoys life should not work to extend life and therefore extend enjoyment as well. And now that longevity and life-extension is quickly becoming a reality, how could one whose enjoying life not reasonable want to take advantage of this new technology to live longer? Regardless of whether or not they have "completely accepted their mortality"... And regardless of whether there is a 'next stage' after death...
"No, I don't think that follows. Appreciation doesn't depend on the experience of suffering. This is the same idea that is propagated in spiritual circles as a way of justifying the existence of unfathomable degree of evil (read:suffering) within existence."
My original post that you were responding to: "Have you ever thought that maybe suffering is needed as a way to truly enjoy and appreciate? (Not that I personally feel that suffering is needed to enjoy and appreciate - just food for thought, I suppose)"
As I mentioned in my original response post, I am not saying that the two are directly correlated 100% of the time. I am saying that one often appreciates an accomplishment a lot more when they've shed blood, sweat, and tears in the process. As an athlete, I can attest to this. However, appreciate and enjoyment do not necessarily require suffering.
"Yes, but you missed the point. In order to rely on science/technological advancement you must have faith that it can achieve those goals. I have witnessed science/technology generate as much human atrocity and disaster as human improvement. At best, it has been neutral, but I have a hard time believing science/technology is going to be able to clean up a planet that science/technology also destroyed. Science and technology are tools, and as such are neutral. Human nature (read: greed, hubris, lack of foresight) has led to the misapplication of technology. I do not feel that human nature can or will transform fast enough to extricate the human race from the problems it has created for itself. I am not a man of faith."
There is still a huge difference. We have a track record to base our future aspirations on. We can look at past scientific/technological advancements as a way to predict future ones using logic and reason. We are not hoping and treading blindly by faith as religious believers are. As I stated before, we are working for a very feasible future; they are hoping. Look how far the world and humanity has come in the last hundred or thousand years (in regards to all the good/positive that has come).
Yes, science/technology is indeed a double edged blade of sorts. It can be used for good, and it can be used for evil. So yes, as you stated, technology is technically neutral until given good or bad purpose. Human nature/choice has, at times, led to the misapplication of technology, but one can not deny all the proper/positive applications that technology has resulted in. Since I am obviously very optimistic, though I remain realistic, I believe that humanity will use future scientific/technological advancements for great good.
However, I do see and fully understand the point you are making. I just view humanity/human nature more optimistically. Yes, we as a race have made some poor decisions, but we have also made lots of good decisions. I feel that as time goes on, people become more educated, and people become more aware; that these good decisions will heavily out weight the bad ones. Also, I do feel that our "human consciousness" is going to continue to rise which will only aid in my optimistic views for the future. With tools/technology like the Internet, I believe more and more people will continue to wake up and realize we are all in this together.