>the idea that people should simply live and die naturally is becoming increasingly antiquated

Indeed, and I personally think that's a very, very good thing. Preventing aging and death is one of the most noble things we as a species can strive towards, in my opinion. I believe this should be the ultimate goal for all sentient beings, not just humans. I believe more and more people are coming to share this sentiment, and I believe that if humanity still exists in 100 years from now, this will be the prevailing world view.

>The primary driving force behind growth and change in society (by proxy of individuals attempting to fulfill the power process) is competition. The conflict that causes this motivation is death- that is to say that the root reason why people do things is because they will eventually not be able to do things. In a society where no one has to compete in the "sexual marketplace", and no one dies within a reasonable lifespan, there largely is no reason to change or grow

This is an extremely common argument, and in my opinion, a weak one. Competitive forces can and do achieve great results across many domains, but to suggest that the only way to achieve great results is through competition, conflict, and death across all areas is a very simplistic and narrow view of reality, I think. I think it's a fallacy of the converse.

Longevity researchers like Aubrey de Grey have good counter-arguments to these sorts of arguments against anti-aging and immortality. For a basic overview, I think the counter-arguments he gave on his recent appearance on Joe Rogan are good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-z0kglwpwo

I believe eliminating aging and death in humans will enable far more growth, change, and happiness than we ever could have experienced before. (To be clear, true immortality will never be possible; quasi-immortality may eventually be possible; biological immortality seems pretty likely to be possible within this century or next century.)

I don't think if you told people they weren't going to eventually die of cancer and aging that they would no longer want to do anything. If anything, it would more effectively enable them to pursue their true passions, since they wouldn't need to save up for retirement before a certain age. (They could if they wanted to, but they would no longer have to.)

In an immortal society, there would still be market competition, and sexual competition, and all sorts of other competition. (I think even if you did remove those two sorts of competition, society would still grow and change effectively, but that's a separate topic.) Although it's an unavoidably influential force at this time, we aren't slaves to natural selection, and to the extent possible, I think we should try to become the opposite of slaves to it. I think we should try to be self-determining.

People should be able to die whenever they want to. They shouldn't have to slowly fall apart and crumble into goo, largely beyond their control. You only have one chance to exist, and it's extremely brief. Why make it briefer than it otherwise could be?

>If you are suggesting that letting people die because they needed organs harvested in a gravely unethical manner is "killing". then yes, I do support that form of "killing" because it is so far removed from the actual meaning of killing that it no longer bears meaning.

But what about decephalization is at all unethical? I don't understand. It seems like the opposite. I think it's one of the most ethical things we can possibly do. There would be far less need to do potentially harmful, torturous, or lethal experiments on thinking animals, including humans. And for humans who want to consume meat, they can do it in a way that doesn't require inflicting pain and death on conscious entities.

I do happen to think it probably isn't practical for testing. The brain is such a crucial component of the body's functioning, so even making one would be very difficult; and even if you could, it would probably significantly influence drug effects and whatever else you're trying to test.

But it seems very ethical, to me. You described it as "human cattle" - no, it's human rocks. In my opinion, we do want to do our death- and suffering-inducing activities on cow rocks and human rocks, not actual cows and actual humans. Rocks are completely incapable of thinking or feeling. It's not unethical to smash two rocks together. The lifeform would never have a brain or anything like it to begin with - it's not removing a brain from an existing person, or something insane like that.