if God offered you a deal of either these two choices which one would you pick?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


define a " human lifetime " dependant on the metrics used - it can be distressingly short

reply to post by AthlonSavage


I would not choose either one of those choices. I would tell God that I love him; but that I have my own free will; and that I will try in life; and make my own choices and see what happens.

I'll just stay where I am. There is nothing in the OP that states you have to take anything, it is an offer.

There is a reason we were programmed to live 100 years or so. No way we could tolerate living in poverty for 10,000 years.

I would never want to live 10000 years straight on this planet. Maye another one, not this one. Regardless of wealth.
I'd have to pick the wealth option.

10000 years of mediocrity, or 100 years of awesomeness. I think it's an easy option. Ever heard of Achilles? You know exactly what option he picked and how that turned out.

I'd rather have my name around for 10000 years than myself and no one knows who I am.

screw it ....

reply to post by AthlonSavage


How about 500 years and be moderately wealthy?

I live frugal anyways and don't make a lot of money working full time but who the hell wants to live 1,000 years?!?!

Everybody you know and love would grow old and die around you.

I am quite happy to live one natural lifetime and be below the poverty level.

I have a wife who loves me, 5 kids who mostly love me, 2 dogs who think I'm GOD and an extremely large African Sulcata tortoise who don't know I exist unless I'm feeding him.

What more should anyone want in life?

As long as I was guaranteed that my 10,000 years doesn't encompass the end of the world or the extinction of human kind (other than myself), and I would be guaranteed perfect health, I would choose the 10k years.

If you think about it. The stipulation was monetary wealth. You can create a foundation that pays all your bills for you. Personally I would be ecstatic to have a chance to create a massive forest preserve with an expansive bunker under a simple cabin. From there I could head an organization that seeks out and helps good people in need. after a thousand years of training I should be pretty buff too... A veritable chick magnet. Although, I think I would stick with the crazy genius hermit / mysterious woodland entity thing for a while.

I would need to figure out how best to invest my meager income to create the largest gains so best benefit the foundation and also, how to best hide myself from the creepy mad scientists of the world that would want to strap me to an examination table.

Personally I would have to choose the ten thousand years. "A wanderer of the earth" (sounds catchy, nog like a sickness though). The amount of knowledge about other societies you could gather would be amazing. The knowledge you would gather about anything round be unconcievable. (Unless of course knowledge is a different form of wealth then I am royally screwed).

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Is this a trick question? My mind says I should choose the second choice, but I think the correct choice would be the first one. However, I wouldn't want to live that long. I would miss everyone that passed before me.

Now that I think about it, neither one. It's a trick question.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


That's exactly the problem with religion. We're given two choices: Obey all of god's laws and go to heaven, don't obey and go to hell.

I am a free man. I will do what I want to do and I will accept the randomness of events in life. To be able to choose one lifestyle over another (long life of poverty, short life and rich), this isn't living. It's like god is programming a life for you. What's the point of it then?

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


We lose friends, family, and lovers in our normal lifespans. That wouldn't be a unique occurrence to extended life. Painful either way. This naturally is less a concern outside of this genie god, and in the hypothetical situation extended life was am option for everyone.

By the way I have seen Man From Earth many times. Absolutely love that movie

reply to post by AthlonSavage


I would choose the second option, but try to live a vice free life. The imortant question is what is the detiny of my soul in either scenario? If I can get to Heaven in either scenario then the later of the two is the obvious choice... besides I wouldn't want to live for 10,000 years

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
If God came down and made you a deal of either the two conditions:

- Live ten thousand years healthly but always be monetary poor and live a simple life (you cant hold more than frugal wealth or live off someone else who has money or the deal is reneged)

- Live one human lifetime and in that time never look old, and always be healthy, and be filthy wealthy, famous, and powerful with any vice or want catered for at your wish

Which one would you pick?

Edit- The fine print of the condition for those picking thousand years.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Druscilla

 

I could thus then live a life of luxury without owning a single thing.

You can live a life of luxury defined only in terms having bare material necessities. You cant hold any wealth. You can seek patronage but if its luxurious you cant hold it for more than a few weeks, your basically a wander on the earth. In fact part of the deal is that you must never stay in one spot too long.

edit on 26-2-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

So Option 1 is:

Eternal Farmer

and Option 2 is:

Lifetime Demigod

I'd go with the demigod option, obviously. If I wanted to live a life of peace somewhere in that, I could just choose to do so. Why would anyone choose the other option is beyond me.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy


By the way I have seen Man From Earth many times. Absolutely love that movie

If option 1 was like Man From Earth, with the penalty being you are forced to watch all your loved ones die over the years at the end of every year, then I'd go with that one. You can live ten thousand years and eventually it wouldn't hurt the first couple times around. But yeah, that movie was nice, and the ending was incredibly sad

I'll take what's behind Door #2. Not because of the money and fame. Because I can't imagine living 10,000 years. If choosing Door 1 I know I would become disgusted with humanity and not be able to kill myself because I'm not 10,000 yet. There would be no way out of that hell other than to wait.

On another note, I've known two lovely ladies who reached their 100th birthday. I attended both of their parties and I think I was more excited about them being 100 than they were. I asked them both how it felt to be 100 and they both told me they wished they hadn't lived so long. That's always stuck with me.

Both are great deals
with option #1 I would choose to grow my understanding of the universe and wonder at humanity changes
with option #2 I would live an exciting life, full of extremes and try to implement changes that would outlive my stay

"when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade"

reply to post by chrome413

If choosing Door 1 I know I would become disgusted with humanity

I would say within ten thousand years, assuming technological development continues, we will be zipping around our galaxy, exploring worlds, and possibly have relationships with intelligent extraterrestrial races.

asked them both how it felt to be 100 and they both told me they wished they hadn't lived so long.

I believe a suspended healthy youthful state is a part of the 10k option. Perhaps if they had been 25 and healthy in those 100 years they would have different feelings on the matter?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage

- Live ten thousand years healthly but always be monetary poor and live a simple life (you cant hold more than frugal wealth or live off someone else who has money or the deal is reneged)

I'd pick this one. A simple, wandering ascetic life would be awesome.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

Is this a trick question?

My mind says I should choose the second choice, but I think the correct choice would be the first one. However, I wouldn't want to live that long. I would miss everyone that passed before me.

Now that I think about it, neither one. It's a trick question.

You give basically the same answer I would and you brought up an important point. Mankind is a social animal, we make connections, we have friends, enemies, family and lovers. What benefit is there in living 10,000 years if you can't share it? What benefit is there in living 10,000 years if you can't change the world to make it a better place? What benefit is there in watching the people you love waste away and die? One would have to pretty self-centric to take the 10,000 year option as all it would bring is knowledge without emottional supports. 10,000 years ahh, I could accumulate a ton of knowledge but for what, I couldn't change anything, I couldn't make meaningfull relationships, it would be like being totally sentient, knowing everything but living in a pain amplifier.

The 100 year option, again is problematic, it's superficial. What you do again requires ego-centrism, it's all about "you" and the moment. Another problem is what if the receiver of this offer is a psychopath? It would seem that every (depraved) desire to be fulfilled would cover a lot of ground I sure wouldn't want to tread on, gain the world, lose your soul? Having that kind of power, to do anything, breeds its own form of contempt for life and people, I'd pass on this one.

Wish vending machine or Cosmic Muffin... The Agnostics prayer, "Dear God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."

Neither option is good as you cannot even have the illusion of control over your future, which is at least what we have now, the illusio of control. I think I would respectively decline the two offers and simply ask if we could go to lunch and talk about the meaning of life.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

I could accumulate a ton of knowledge but for what, I couldn't change anything, I couldn't make meaningfull relationships

I don't follow your critique.

Why can't you continue to form new relationships?

Why can't you 'change the world' with the knowledge?