What if we argue, not from the good of the individual, but the good of society? Isn't there a saying that goes something like, "Society progresses one funeral at a time?"
Sure, but consider the cost: all those people, dead!
Doesn't that bother you? More to the point, does it bother you enough that you'll consider possible nonlethal ways for society to advance? If you're biasing your arguments in favor of the status quo, it's easy to forget to look for a third option.
In that case, it seems like what we're really trying to do is envision or bring about a world in which death ISN'T a good thing. If we can bring about an existence without overpopulation, decrepitude, destruction of the biosphere—and maybe with interplanetary colonization, to boot—then death won't be a good thing anymore. But death is not the evil there. Suffering is. I don't think anyone would argue that death is an ULTIMATE good, unless they worshiped Kali or were just hoping to get into heaven—but as long as we live in a world with suffering, decay, and limited resources, put me down in the death column. The cost might be 'all those people' but the alternative is horrible to contemplate.
