Not really, especially if we have the ability to expand beyond our world and form livable conditions elsewhere. Rules could be composed such as being able to see through the eyes of drones or other robotics while our physical body is kept safe in underground facilities. You put so many limits on what we could do and that's forming the foundation of your flawed reasoning.

You use the catchphrase death defines life as if it's scientific staple because it sounds good. But catchy phrases don't dictate reality, and the real truth is that you have no idea how it would actually play our. You are guessing. Yet you state it as matter of fact.

Humans have shown tremendous resilience towards adversity. Adversity and necessity have driven us to do extraordinary things scientifically, things that would seem like magic to humans living hundreds of years ago.

So I don't take your quote of death defining the value of life. In fact the majority of the world is religious who believe that death is just the beginning and that the afterlife defines life. Yet the world keeps spinning and people keep going with renewed vigor constantly.

Edit because I get upset about crap like this. Human beings are a huge contributor to imbalance to nature. But steps are being taken to help that imbalance, with things like lab grown meats and combating climate change. The future is not limited because you say so. We can actually make it a goal to sustain and maintain balance better than anything else out there. Intervening in moments where species are nearly extinct, providing care and shelter and everything else under the sun. I'm sorry but you aren't seeing any type of big picture possibilities and just harping on your small scope lens you read about in news feeds everyday. If you stop and take a step back and look at it in a wider lens you could see that humanity living much longer really is actually for the better of nature and not the other way around.