If you could live to 200, 2000, or 20,000 years old, which would you pick?

1. 87

   crankaliciousposted 10 years ago

   If you could live to 200, 2000, or 20,000 years old, which would you pick?
   
   You can also answer that you don't want to live any longer than you're going to, if you want. You do get to live all those years at whatever age you are currently, so you don't have to get so old you can't move or anything. Whatever answer you give, provide a short explanation as to why you picked it.

   replyreport
2. 77

   stclairjackposted 10 years ago

   surounded by folks older than i am in my early years, (i was the only child among a circle of people my grandparents age) i got to know death at an early age,... i was rather comfortable with the concept from the beginning. when youre 12 years old and youve burried half of your friends by that age, because nearly all your friends were in thier 70's when you were born, funerals are common place.
   
   i've grown up, and also began to burry friends my own age now. i've grown older and see grey hair in my hair and arthur in my knuckles..... and ive worked in long term care for the last few years.
   
   i'm well aware that if i were to remove tobaco, whiskey, bacon and sex from my daily list of vices i could well add 20 years to my life, but i see no gain in such an act. i have whitnessed personaly that those last 20 years are not all that great. they more often than not are filled with dementia, incontenance and pureed food.
   
   to be frank, i dont want THOSE years. i want THESE years and i want them to be FILLED with bacon whiskey tobaco and sex.
   
   so you see i have no desire to live for 200 500 or 3000 years,.... i dont even want to see 80,... unless i am still able to fully enjoy whiskey bacon tobaco and sex.
   
   but i assure you, if i MUST wind up in some old folks home somwhere, i WILL be the crazy old bag that tells outlandish stories and tales of daring-do and hillarious lunacy,.... i will be the entertaining grey haired lady that has something to say other than,... "i got married, had 5 kids who never visit me now, i outlived my husband and taught sunday school till my stroke"
   
   not sure that was the kind of answer you were looking for,.. but its what came to me at 11pm on a thursday

   replyreport
3. 62

   sunilkunnoth2012posted 10 years ago

   200 I prefer, that is just the double of our present living age. Too much of anything is good for nothing and hence I say no to 2000 or 20000.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      duffsmomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I like your reasoning. 200 would be my choice too, providing I don't approach it as an incoherent vegetable.

      replyreport
4. 60

   C.V.Rajanposted 10 years ago

   I would be content with just 60. None of your choices.
   At 60, I would have had a fair share of my enjoyments, helped my children to settle in life, would have lived (hopefully) with no serious ailments like BP, sugar, Parkinson's disease, would not be physically or financially dependent on others, still being respected in society, my mental and intellectual faculties and wisdom intact (without getting eroded by old age), and hopefully my eye-sight, teeth and hearing still intact. That's the peak time for me to retire, not only from job from the very earth itself!

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lone77starposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Beautiful, CV.

      replyreport
5. 72

   lone77starposted 10 years ago

   If one gives up ego, one gains everlasting life -- the spiritual rebirth that Christ mentioned.
   
   Ego is the blindfold that brings darkness to the true, spiritual self and makes us dependent upon physical senses of our bodies.
   
   I would very much like to be rid of ego once and for all. I have tasted this, and I could see without the via of human eyes. I could maintain conscious awareness without the human brain of my current body.
   
   With this -- spiritual rebirth -- I pick up where I left off so many millennia ago, in the Garden. I regain my immortality, so I "live" for an infinite number of years.
   
   As for your interesting question, I might pick 20,000 for my physical body. I would expect that the body rejuvenated itself and kept a clear eye and mind, as did Moses to 120. At 63, I'm still in pretty good health. But my main interest is in eliminating the ego self so that my true self can be reborn once and for all. For only then can I truly follow Christ. I hunger for this.
   
   As for why I would choose 20,000 or 2,000,000 or even 2,000,000,000, I would love the continuity of conscious that would be unnecessary with a physical body, if ego were fully gone. I would love the experience of seeing so many changes -- seeing the growth of civilization, perhaps. If only we can get past ego, civilization could last. But I think this physical experience will not serve us well, once we have achieved spiritual rebirth. Living in an action-reaction world would  tend to perpetuate the action-reaction, ego self. Perhaps, it would be best to return to God and leave all attachments behind.
   
   I sometimes wonder what would have happened if I had not died 11,553 years ago amongst the other refugees of that once proud island. It would've been quite an experience to see the "elves" of magical, lost technology mixing with the primitives of post-Ice Age Earth. It would've been strange to experience the rebirth of civilization more than 6,000 years after the previous one had died. And it would've seemed like an eternity before technology once again became common. But through it all, the sameness of ego would show that humanity will remain the same so long as selfishness and separateness remain.

   replyreport
6. 84

   TIMETRAVELER2posted 10 years ago

   That would depend on a few things:  would all the people I know and love live as long as I do?  and  Will I be healthy in mind and body during those years so that I can enjoy life?  If I cannot have these two things, a longer life would mean nothing.

   replyreport
7. 71

   lburmasterposted 10 years ago

   Don't want to live any longer than I'm going to. Getting through this amount of time is difficult enough.

   replyreport
8. 59

   madmachioposted 10 years ago

   200 would be long enough for me. I'd live long enough to see history repeat itself . And I'd get to see a couple generations

   replyreport
9. 87

   crankaliciousposted 10 years ago

   I must admit to being somewhat perturbed that some people choose not to engage the question but do take the time to write nonetheless. This is a thought experiment. Challenging the very nature of the question just suggests you cannot engage in a thought experiment or are too close-minded to think expansively for a few minutes. The question is a fantasy, of course, though it's possible science may be able to extend life pretty soon.
   
   Anyway, I like those who selected 200 years, provided they had good health. I think that shows some thinking. Choosing between 200 and 2000 would be very difficult, particularly if you knew along the way you were going to live to 2000 years old and you got suicidal at 300 or something. That would be really depressing. And at some point, I wonder if the memories of all those you loved and who had passed would really get to you. 200 is a good answer. I wish I could live 2000 years, but I don't know if the human brain could handle it.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Andy McGuireposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The question is flawed since there is no option for a normal lifespan, given that most people clearly do not want to live forever. It's like asking a vegetarian if they'd prefer to eat beef testicles, sheep brains, or a quarter pounder with cheese.

      replyreport
10. 73

    ParadigmEnactedposted 10 years ago

    There are very important understandings to be had about death. Whatever pitfalls death has are offset by the pitfalls of living. It's especially necessary for humans to experience it, and it would be a shame if they no longer factored it in. It would be like any other advantage or thing taken for granted which corrupts a person's spirit as a result. Our mortality is something highly endearing about life, and the trade off is that not dying physically we'd essentially be devoid of spirit, hence experiencing spiritual death over the physical one. I have the utmost respect for death...but I also respect life.
    
    The only thing I take exception to sometimes is the timing. Death can also be something very troublesome and unsavory if not mitigated. So something above the current threshold but well short of excess would be ideal. 200-300 years would be reasonable for me personally, but others could use less. Others maybe a little more, but the longer they last the more like soul-dead androids they would be. It's kind of like how the most useless or least imaginative people have the most money. There's always that trade off.

    replyreport