What's better: being alive or not alive?

[ledwix]

Weird thoughts, but I'm beginning to think neither is better.

For instance, a man who was born in 1700 is not alive right now. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Methinks it's neither. It just happens to be a different part of the time line. We can't really say objectively. So since not being alive is neither good nor bad, then being alive should also be neither good nor bad. Then preserving a life should not be considered good or bad, since making the transition from life to death wouldn't be considered good or bad. So why do we try and save ourselves? Is it only because of evolutionary logic, or is there something else? If any person were asked if he'd prefer a life or a death, he'd overwhelmingly likely say he'd prefer the life. So preservation seems to be an innate and obvious tendency, regardless of rationale.

But really...

I can't think of any particular reason why I am better than John Locke or Confucius just because I'm alive and they're not.

And does the fact that our matter happens to be alive make us better than the vast majority of matter that is not alive? Or does it just make us blessed and lucky? I don't feel obligated to look after the rest of the matter; I just think about using it and enjoying myself.