system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
The right to not die...

This crossed my mind a little while ago and I wanted to explore it further... 
It's a little bit tricky for me to get what I want to say across but I shall try my best! Haha. 

Sure human beings will perish at one point or other - everyone knows this 100% But as far as our human rights are concerned, technically speaking would to not die PERIOD be one of those rights? Yes, I am talking about immortality.  
As I understand it our human rights are designed to protect us from most kinds of danger and to give us freedom. But when we talk about death - it can be argued that dying is actually a harmful thing (quite so!) 
It may seem silly to ask this type of question - but there are many sorts of things out there that we have a right to be safe from. 
And when we venture into the realms of bioethics - dying is something that is **absolutely forbidden** and is avoided at all costs.

So to conclude once again - do human beings have a right to be immortal?
gpt
I think your question highlights an important weakness in 'rights' discourse. Where do rights come from, and what is their basis? We like to treat them as though they just exist, eternally out there in the world, but clearly that isn't the case.

For example, there is a push to make access to the internet a human right. Did that right exist in 1920, and we were just all having it violated because the internet didn't exist yet? That doesn't seem reasonable.

If anything, that right came into existence when it became socially reasonable to provide internet to most or all people. So it's not that we had a pre-existing right to access the internet, it is that it became socially just to ensure equal access when that became economically feasible.

And if that's how rights work, we can't have a right to immortality. If it's technologically impossible (as it currently is) then it's like having the right to the internet in the 1920s. 

But then 'rights' discourse seems to treat these contingent, socially embedded facts (like there is enough internet to go around) as though they were objective, natural facts about what people ought to have. If that's the case, why not just talk about just distribution of resources, rather than 'rights'?