This is a special post for quick takes by TsviBT. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Say a "deathist" is someone who says "death is net good (gives meaning to life, is natural and therefore good, allows change in society, etc.)" and a "lifeist" ("anti-deathist") is someone who says "death is net bad (life is good, people should not have to involuntarily die, I want me and my loved ones to live)". There are clearly people who go deathist -> lifeist, as that's most lifeists (if nothing else, as an older kid they would have uttered deathism, as the predominant ideology). One might also argue that young kids are naturally lifeist, and therefore most people have gone lifeist -> deathist once. Are there people who have gone deathist -> lifeist -> deathist? Are there people who were raised lifeist and then went deathist?
@Valentine comes to mind as a person who was raised lifeist and is now still lifeist, but I think has more complicated feelings/views about the situation related to enlightenment and metaphysics that make death an illusion, or something.
I think I've been unwaveringly lifeist the whole time. My main shift has been that I think I see some value in deathist sentiment that's absent from most lifeist rhetoric I'm familiar with. I want a perspective that honors why both arise.
I did dabble with ideas around whether death is an illusion. And I still think there might be something to it. But having done so, it looks like a moving goalposts thing to me. I still don't want to die, and I don't want my loved ones to die, and I think that means something that matters.
The distinction you want is probably not rational/irrational but CDT/UDT or whatever,
Also,
[...]
well, it's also insurance against the best outcomes lasting forever (though you're probably going to reply that bad outcomes are more likely than good outcomes and/or that you care more about preventing bad outcomes than ensuring good outcomes)