you correctly appreciate the structural way in which the argument works.
but you still do not seem to want to see the underlying subltety; that death and life are merely parts of the same larger entity and that our language (our rationalist analytical way of thinking) makes us "miss the forest for the trees", to focus on life and death as opposing rival forces when in fact they're different edges(ends, or sides) of the same larger phenomenon.
There's probably an analogue argument for diseases and I'd still rather live in the universe where poliomyelitis was eradicated than one where it wasn't.
Why it being part of a larger phenomenon would stop us from preferring to stay on one side of it?
I would also say that we probably should reject the idea that there's a yin-yang give and take where one is the flip side of the other. So far as we can tell, most of the universe, heck most of earth just isn't alive; most things just live on the surface.
In most of the universe things are just dead, and stay dead, and aren't part of any process of transformation where death transforms into life. If anything, the "process" of things dying can be part of a downward spiral of more death, and life can be part of an upward spiral that begets more life, and there's all kinds of pertinent details that separate those circumstances.
Life probably started here by underwater volcanoes, and started feedback loops that bloomed more life, and on and on. Meanwhile, most places stay dead and don't become anything.
It's just so frustrating to step into conversations about saving someone's life so they can live to see their great granddaughter's birthday and have someone say we shouldn't because they'd rather play games with metaphysics.
IMO it's rather annoying how the argument usually goes "well, there might be some bigger quasi-mythical reason for things being like that" but they just don't provide any good reason for betting on that metaphysics.
They've decided it's how things should be and often will pull unknowable arguments for it.
I think I fully understand this new subtlety and consciousness dismiss it as ridiculous. Two unlike things were being compared, and the underlying idea that life and death are complements (1) is so vague and open ended that it would take a lot of clarification to understand whatever you think it brings to bear here and (2) on account of its vagueness, functions as a pretty broad expression of a casual acceptance of death that invites all kinds of slippery slopes far worse than the one you are identifying.
And since I'm on the side of thinking we can appeal to analytic concepts to distinguish between health problems that emerge in old age and "solving" childhood with horrific consequences, and you are on the side of seeing them as the same because those distinctions are trapped in strictures of analytic thinking, I imagine that you give your full blown acceptance a pandora's box of outrageous situations. Genocide? Eugenics? Letting global warming happen? Letting war happen? Nuclear bombs? All just the flip side of life, part of a greater dialectic that unites them, and ultimately all fine and good.
Since you reject separating out good and bad cases according to any reading that would have structure, I trust that you embrace this slippery slope just as much as the one you want to attribute to the project of combating health issues in old age.
you correctly appreciate the structural way in which the argument works.
but you still do not seem to want to see the underlying subltety; that death and life are merely parts of the same larger entity and that our language (our rationalist analytical way of thinking) makes us "miss the forest for the trees", to focus on life and death as opposing rival forces when in fact they're different edges(ends, or sides) of the same larger phenomenon.