That is an excellent question, one that philosophers have asked themselves many times. I think a lot of people agree with the statement that death itself is not a problem if we stop existing. The philosopher Schopenhauer, for instance, argued that the time after your death is not worse than the time before your birth since “the two are not distinguished by anything except by the intervention of an ephemeral life-dream.” (WWV II, kap. 41 (III, 548)) It comforts him that the 13.9 billion years of not existing before his birth weren’t that bad. Why would the time after your passing be any worse?
The problem with dying should, therefore, not be sought in death itself. I think the problem lies in the absence of living. The difference between death and the absence of life may seem unimportant, but I have a problem with the latter, not the first. I’m living a rather happy life and I think I would describe my average emotion as positive. Therefore, feeling is better than not feeling. I wouldn’t feel anything negative if I wouldn’t feel anything, but it would be worse than before.
That, however, doesn’t mean that I think that my life is only worth living as long as I’m happy. I can’t help being filled with wonderment when I look at the complexity of life and consciousness. I think the fact that I feel is amazing, regardless the emotion, and I can’t even begin to grasp how that could come into existence in the first place. I personally value life, for the sake of it’s complexity.
Some answers here suggest that death is undesirable because the process of dying is usually painful. However, don’t we all suffer some pain at some point in our lives? I would personally prefer an appendicitis over death. I think the thing about death I fear the most is not death but unrealized potential of life. I fear missing out on the good stuff, on all the things I want to do.
