joker, i was at this question a few weeks ago when sitting at a bus station watching people toil like ants… comfort.
comfort i have deemed is a logically necessarily desirable. do not desire comfort is to be irrational or illogical.
Comfort is arbitrary. It is not a necessity.
i am agnostic/atheist and i had no religious thoughts when i wrote this sentence.
basically it is a pursuit of perfection dealy, where it is desirable to be as perfect as possible within the most reasonable amount of effort. thus attaining a defined and demonstrated “transcendence” from that of an ineffective survivor.
even when you use nihilism as a back drop for your counter argument the question can become. how best can you comfort yourself in light of your impending vain doom?
right and it is necessarily arbitrarily desirable of a rational person 
for the record i said it is our duty to try not to be
Hunting and gathering was effective. There have been studies showing how the first agriculturalists ate less than the previous historical hunter gatherers before them.
My point is that the understanding of “transcendence” given to primitive man by religion was un-necessary and without substance.
There was no need, duty, or objective reason for ancient man to “transcend” into anything.
The reason that ancient man “transcended” into civilization was because the temple priests promised the people that a bridge would be built to get closer to the gods and over the 19th century where we effectively have destroyed traditional religions for more newer scientific ones now there exists “transcendence” promising individuals future salvation to live like gods themselves.
the “gift” of religious transcendence to man seems to me more of a pitfall with a cute but ferocious teddy bear at the bottom. it would be great if it existed but we are simply to logical for faith… are we doomed? :-&
what about survival
Primitive man was already surviving.
To survive is to transcend the state of death. Living things transcend inanimate matter. You can’t help but being a transcendentalist, Joker. 
To ask why human beings should transcend their animal nature is like asking why animals should live rather than die.
not very effectivley
Prove it.
According to whom?
the women of the cave men i guess… you see they used to run to enemy camps, bonk the women on the head and then rape them… i would deem this to be an ineffective or at minimum, weak type of survival.
lol determinism much?
How about you tell me what do you consider to be the main difference(s) between living and non-living things?
I am not wise enough to proclaim what is truly living and what is not. If you are that wise, then I’m willing to listen to your answers and knowledge. I only know that some things ‘appear’ to live while other things ‘appear’ to not live; people categorize accordingly, and often incorrectly.
Is a virus living? Is a tree living? Is frozen bacteria hitching a ride on a meteor living? How about other frozen lifeforms that can apparently stop their heartbeats, unthaw, and come alive again?
ohh oh me me meee! i know!
truly living is living the best way you know how 
you cannot argue with that! cause if your doing something the best way you know how, it can get no better…
did someone say religion is now superfluous?
a living thing: some form of substantial matter that appears to be self activated or directed.
a non living thing: some form of matter that is not self directed or is inanimate (does not move)
Anything that respires is living…