>What good is it to live a trillion trillion years just to freeze to death while starving? It's 10 billion trillion times better than living 100 years and then

>What good is it to live a trillion trillion years just to freeze to death while starving? It's 10 billion trillion times better than living 100 years and then dying while hacking your lungs out delirious in a hosipital bed covered in bedsores. Potentially a lot more, if there's prospects to alter/expand ourselves into being capable of contemplating/experiencing more complicated ideas and scenarios beyond the scope of our current bodies. It just seems like making the best of a bad situation. If I imagine two futures, one where people get old and decrepit, live in terrible pain, and die at 80, for such a stupid reason as that they're produced by a blind-idiot-god process that doesn't need them as more than a disposable fuck/murderbot. And this keeps happening till an asteroid hits and they all die. And another where they never have to go away and can explore the furthest reaches of what they can be, until, eventually, after an incredible amount of time, we have a last mournful party and turn off the lights across the cosmos. The second story's sad! But not as sad and ugly as the first, and it might make life coming into being have been worth it, on balance. I heard someone say, once, that the growth of humanity could grant us purer, more complete, and more perfect death than nature alone would deign to give us. I'd rather die with an eon of friends at my side, having lived a few millenia as a walrus, than practically stillborn here and now.