> I like that you're actually trying to answer my question instead of being dismissive about it.

And I appreciate that you're attempting to understand another point of view. Thank you.

> One is the process of losing your sense of self. I agree that must be extremely frightening. Losing control of yourself is no doubt hard.

There's a difference here between what I'm talking about and what you're talking about, and it's a critically important one: there's a big difference between "losing control of yourself" and "losing yourself". I mentioned degenerative mental disorders specifically because that's a case where you're not still "in there" somewhere. I'm talking about the case where there's no "you" left. You are your mind; if your mind is gone, there's no "you" anymore.

The distinction is important for people who would equate that entirely with death. You thought I was talking about the process, but I'm very much talking about the end result.

It would be as if you'd said "well, the part of a degenerative mental disease where you're forgetting everything you are is horrible, but once you're done forgetting everything you are, and forgetting that there was even something to forget, what's wrong with that?".

> However, in discussing death, I am referring to the result, not the process.

So am I. The process varies depending on how you die. The result is always the same: no more you. The suffering is nothing compared to the non-existence at the end; suffering can be lived through and gotten past, but death cannot. (This point of view is rather diametrically opposed to the one that views death as a potential "end to suffering".)

> You haven't been able to explain to me why the result after the process is over is so scary.

Fear isn't a required component, though it's certainly a healthy reaction (same as if something large and hungry is running at you: danger, thing to avoid, fight against it or flee from it). The key point is that it's a horrible atrocity for anyone to die. One less mind in the world; one less light in the darkness; one less set of unique experiences; one sentient being annihilated forever.

For what it's worth, part of the reason I find this question hard to answer is not because I find it complicated, but because I find it very simple; it's as if you asked "why is 1 > 0?". To which the answer is "because that's how we define 1 and 0". Why is life better than death? Because life is, and death isn't. But if you found that answer convincing, you'd already be convinced; there's a difference in fundamental value systems here.

> Questions regarding scarcity and whether it can be resolved even with new technology and expansion to other galaxies unfortunately cannot be easily resolved until it happens. That being said, I have little faith that humanity can have that Star Trek epiphany.

I very much doubt the future will look like Star Trek; I think we can do much better, though fiction certainly provides some useful inspiration. How soon we can get there is another question entirely.

I want to make this world better, because 1) wanting to do so is a required first step to make it happen, and 2) if you start from the premise that it's the only one we've got, then we have to make the most of it. I personally feel that mortality and death is the biggest evil in the world, and the one worth spending the most effort to fight first, but it certainly isn't the last one, and when we're done with it we shouldn't hang up our tools and rest.

For a bit of writing I find particularly inspiring on this topic, see http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html ; it's a transparent allegory, but one I find quite compelling.

> I really do wish I could think better of humanity.

You're part of humanity. What are you, personally, doing to solve the problem? Blaming "political will" is one thing, but large-scale apathy is at least as big a roadblock to solving issues on that scale.

The first step to solving a problem is to decide it needs solving. And deciding that it can't be solved makes it harder to solve.