Aubrey de Grey suggests this in one of his TED Talks (http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_gr

Aubrey de Grey suggests this in one of his TED Talks (http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_ag...). The main problem is that one _can_ die regardless how much infrastructure, political, religious, economic, etc. we build around death. "Graceful death" is what we should be aiming for, as ultimately such a "bubble-up" approach to dying itself will give us a way to modularize and treat its symptoms (or, as you put it, "microaccidents"). Applying principles of graceful degradation to the process of dying may have a consequence of extended life, but the main goal is to not build _unnecessary_ medical, political, doxastic institution, industry or infrastructure around this process. So, for instance, do we _really_ need hospitals or surgeons _physically_ touching patients? Whether or not one comes down on one decision or the other, there will be political, economic, pharmaceutical, technical, industrial, etc., etc. that follow. Medicine is _costly_ to practice; _triage_ is stressful and costly; ERs are costly; ambulances are costly -- Do you _believe_ in these things? Or do we simply wish to maintain our health? What is the most efficient way to do this? "Graceful dying" may be viewed as a kind of preventive, holistic therapy to this process, where all we've done historically is _react_, medically speaking, to this natural process. "Graceful death" may, in the long run, be _cheaper_ and we get the added benefit of physiologically more rewarding life experiences.