I'll be honest, I know very little of what I assume is a Freudian (or Freudian elaboration) formulation called the Death Drive: that all organisms seek after their demise. There's a link below to the Wikipedia entry if you feel like reading it.
Perhaps that in itself is an errant formulation but I think it serves. I'm sure someone can clear it up for me if they want to.
Anyway...the last post posits a "hate" of nature (the natural world--the planet) and a wish to not be "OF" this planet and in so doing find a way to exist outside of it's life-force.
Again, we rely on the natural for existence and yet we hate this very fact--well, we hate the end of existence. And from this perhaps we need heaven and other religious trappings and then too the dream of science which is to point the prow to the cosmos and set sail.
Of course, this presumes the cosmos is "not like earth" or perhaps "unnatural" in some way.
The only way to ignore biology is to not be biologic. BUT our very thinking springs out of the biologic. Our forms, our codes, our designs, our laws of nature, are all "of" the biologic understanding of the world and then the universe.
Anyway, this rambling is simply to say we are not ever to be satisfied with life as it is because we are conscious of its end. Our TIME here on earth has limits and this limits our "meaningfulness"--this limits our selves, our unique being.
So, I'm tempted to simply say that the death drive of biology which can make sense if framed as "make space for other organisms" drive (or as Rilo Kiley phrases it in perhaps my favorite of their songs--to give things their turn) seems to be to have yielded to the technicity drive--the drive to be beyond biology.