I've edited to replace "no big deal" with "inconsequential," which is the word you used. They seem interchangeable to me, but I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

To be clear, I said the difference to the person "experiencing" being dead vs. being alive in inconsequential. The process of dying, including the goodbyes, sucks.

Also true... which is not itself a reason to eschew reducing the pain of others, or our own pain.

Of course. Though I think it is helpful to temper our expectations. That is all I meant.

But there's a huge gulf between "don't survive at all costs" and "death is neutral." I understand how you get to the former. I'm trying to understand how you get to the latter.

Death is only a thing because life is a thing. It just is. I'd say it's peculiar (though natural) thing to apply value to it.

Maybe this tact: What if we solve death? What if we find a way to preserve everyone's consciousness and memory (and however else you define death transendence)? Is that "better"? Why? How? Because you get more utilons and fuzzies? Does the utilon/fuzzy economy collapse sans death?

More than that, it seems very rational people should be able to recognize that someone "dying" is nothing more than the flame of consciousness being extinguished. A flame that existed because of purely natural mechanisms. There is no "self" to die. A localized meat-hardware program (that you were familiar with and brought you psychological support) shut down. "Your" meat-hardware program is responding in turn with thoughts and emotions.

I mentioned Buddhism... as it pertains here, I see it as this: Death will be "bad" to you to the extent you identify with your "self". I am not my meat-hardware. I notice my meat-hardware via the consciousness it manifests. I notice my meat-hardware is hardwired to hate and fear death. I notice my meat-hardware will break someday -- it may even malfunction significantly and alter the manifest consciousness through which I view it...

In this sort of meditation, death, to me, is neutral.