Off all the arguments against longevity research “life requires death to have meaning” is one of the hardest to coherently argue against beyond simply saying “wtf no it doesn’t”. This is going to me trying to do that.
When we get down to it, the need for a meaningful life is a social one. It’s the drive to touch others lives, to create a better world. We measure meaning in how our acts influence others, and in the absence so other people meaning is fundamentally impossible. Death makes further acting impossible – it merely allows a life to be ‘tallied up’ with a specific end point, and we don’t have to worry about whether one has done ‘enough’, or fear that future acts will undo any good we’ve wrought.
It’s like saying a piece of art isn’t finished without a signature. Perhaps accurate, the signature doesn’t actually influence the artwork in any way, it merely signifies that the work can now be evaluated. Moreover, this implies that a Life is something that can in some way be ‘completed’ instead of merely cut short.
It’s also worth noting that longevity and/or biological immortality in no way innures you against Loss. Your friends and family will move away and you’ll never see them again, the band you like will break up, and in general the world will change and in so doing take away the things you love, but what is guaranteed is the chance to find new things and people to love.
It’s much simpler to appreciate the transient beauty of Roses when you’ll get to see them again someday.