Death is Wrong

You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit

Death is wrong, and we should end it. That’s one of my core values. That’s part of why I do biofield healing. I discussed this with a friend last week, and decided to share it here, too.

Death is a tragedy. An error of evolution that we should fix with medical technology. Researchers are currently working on this, and we collectively should be doing more to research and fund it. One of my goals with Healing Lab is to one day participate in that research.

I’ve had this conversation before. You’re probably thinking of an objection. What about overpopulation? Slower social progress? Or the drive that death gives us to appreciate each day? It’s normal to internalize some of the ways we cope with death. Here’s what I always say:

Imagine it’s 2316, three hundred years from now. You and I are still alive, healthy, in what is today a 30-50 year old body. People occasionally die from accidents, though less often because of increasing safety standards. And very rarely, a person decides they want to die, and we let them. But mostly, we all expect to live for another 300 or 3000 years or more.

The problem you imagine comes up: Suburbs become cities. Meat becomes expensive. Transgender rights took 100 years instead of 50. People spend less time appreciating each day. Whatever your scenario is, it happens.

What happens next? I imagine engineers designing taller buildings. Scientists developing non-animal meat, and social mores changing to allow us to eat insect protein. Political rights movements learning new ways to reach people from an older age, and as today, change is slower than it should be but still happens. New spiritualities emerging to help us appreciate each day, simply because it is an enjoyable practice.

What I don’t imagine is someone saying, “The solution is simple: Kill everyone over 100.”

That’s not a political platform. It’s not even a comic book villain. It’s eat-Irish-babies level satire.

It’s also our status quo today. That’s wrong, and we should do everything we can to fix it.

If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at


6 Responses to “Death is Wrong”

  1. Daniel says:

    I’m curious about your view of the afterlife, and the idea that physical death is an important part of a soul’s development.

    • Personally, I don’t believe in an afterlife or an immortal soul. But for people that do, I think they should be free to choose when they die.

      If someone wants to die at the currently-normal 80, I support that. If they want to die at 40, which was the normal lifespan for much of human history, I support that too. If they choose to die on their 300th birthday, I support that. Or if they change their mind on that day, and decide that 350 is a better age, then revise it again to 400, and keep pushing the date of their death further into the future, I support that too.

      I want everyone to be able to choose when they die, and even whether they die.

      I think it’s a tragedy that the beliefs that have historically comforted us as we or loved ones faced death, now sap the urgency (and funding) from research into life extension. But maybe you’ll notice that you prefer 80 years of life over 40 years of life, and that if it were on offer, 150 years would be even better. And maybe at age 150, you’ll decide that 250 years sounds better still. And maybe, if we notice that pattern now, we’ll choose to support life extension and immortality research, so we all have that option within our lifetimes.

  2. Julie says:


    I’ve had a busy week, otherwise, I would’ve commented sooner.

    You’ve written a powerful and thought-provoking post. Perhaps, your core value is compassion which leads you to believe death is wrong. I agree with you, but does that make immortality right? Do you think if given the chance most people would choose to live forever? Forever is pretty long time. And how would that work? Do we stay the same age? How is death eradicated?

    I believe in reincarnation, so in a sense we do live forever. We come back in a different body. No, I don’t have proof. I have a knowing that the soul never dies. Love never dies. I think death is a new beginning; it isn’t an error of evolution. Nature dies, but not completely. It reminds me of a Rumi quote, “Don’t think the garden loses its ecstasy in winter. It’s quiet, but the roots are down there riotous.”

    Is it greedy to want to live forever? I don’t know. If we aren’t faced with our mortality, we could become jaded and apathetic. Or we might be happier because there wouldn’t be disease. It’s interesting to think about. Sometimes death is kind by ending people’s suffering. My belief in “heaven” isn’t a comforting story. You can’t prove there isn’t an afterlife. You can’t prove there isn’t a soul. Why do you need scientific proof? What has science done for you?

    Death is discipline. We strive for enlightenment, so we don’t return to the physical body. We have karma to work out. I’ve lived before and I’ll live again. I’m confused, you believe in magick, but not the soul or afterlife. Most of the “new age” people I’ve met believed in all three – like a package deal. Or maybe I didn’t know their views completely.

    At the risk of stepping on the all mighty wizard’s toes ;) you have to express your passion in a way that doesn’t imply that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. I guess that’s what blogs are about, but it can be off-putting to readers.

    I think it’s naïve and unfair to blame religious beliefs for things the government is or isn’t doing. I’m sure the government already has your immortality pill and a few other magic elixirs that would solve many of our problems. I bet the government continued their research without the public’s knowledge. The problem is we choose war over peace, and fear over love.

    What makes your comforting story better than someone else’s comforting story? Life is hard enough, let people have their comfort. With all due respect.

    Your friend,


    • Thanks Julie.

      I’ve come around to the same view, that it’s important to be gentle and advocate for my goals while allowing other views. I’ve taken down my previous comment, and posted a better one.

      My apologies to anyone I offended.

      In most views of immortality research, the healthy lifespan is extended, and we continue living in 30-50 year old bodies. There is active research into medical technology for this, by the way. Two drugs have already been developed and are currently in testing that would add 20 years to our lifespan, not at the end of life, but in the middle, causing us to be as healthy at 70 as we currently are at 50 This is current science. It’s happening. I just think it should be happening faster. Ideally, while you and I are still alive.

      I do think most people would want to live forever. Or perhaps they wouldn’t say “forever.” Perhaps each year, they’d say “another year,” choosing immortality incrementally. But, absent disease or other health problems, I cannot imagine a point where I would want to die, and I haven’t met many who can.

  3. A bit of a wrap-up on this: After a few attempts, I found a positive way to talk about my expectation that even people who believe in an afterlife will want longer lives (or indefinitely-long lives), and that it’s a tragedy how some of these beliefs can detract from the urgency of this research. And writing that answer feels good. Much better than not expressing those ideas and concerns, but also much better than expressing them confrontationally. You can see it above, in response to the first comment.

    This positive answer felt surprisingly good. I’ve been wrestling with my answer for most of the week, wanting to express my sincere thoughts, but also wanting to connect with readers and healers and other folks. I’ve worried that gaining one would cost the other, that the only option was to censor myself, and the only choice was how much to self-censor. So finding a positive way to express my sentiments, and finding that it feels better than the harsh reply, makes me tremendously happy.

    Thank you to everyone who weighed in. Especially the gentle ones (like Julie), but also to the less-gentle ones. This interaction, and this growth, is one of my big reasons for blogging.

    • George says:

      It would be a real shame if you (and other people exploring these topics) decided to self-censor, especially considering ‘magick’ is surely one of the few areas which inherently encourages a more open mindset by default. So long as disagreement is respectful, it can often lead to new avenues of thought which neither party would come up without such a “collision” with an outside perspective.

      Although I don’t share your utopian optimism (and implicit faith in the idea of progress) when it comes to imagining how the world would respond something like effective immortality, it’s still refreshing to explore the different views. For example, even if we don’t believe in an afterlife ourselves, we still have to accommodate those that do into our vision of a future world, if we are to avoid totalitarianism. Maybe a future post on “morality & magick” would be interesting?

Leave a Reply