It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by mahatche
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
You could be that in either option. Mabey after five thousand years a person who started off loving people may despise them. Can time mellow an immortal?
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by AthlonSavage
Why does this need to be some mythological figure offering the deal?
Why can't it be some magic vending machine?
If option 1 was 10,000 years of unstoppable super-power immortality, I'd mercenary myself out to the patronage of whoever has the best offer, sound in the knowledge that no one, and nothing could kill me, where I would just need secure a patron to meet my needs every so many decades, or until I got a better offer.
I could thus then live a life of luxury without owning a single thing.
If option 1 was just the chance to live 10k years so long as I took care of myself and didn't befall any accidents, well, then, no deal. People lose body parts to accidents all the time in just one lifetime. It'd suck to live 9000 years as a handicap with missing bits due some accident or another, with bits getting lost every thousand years or so like a zombie falling apart in slow motion. No thanks.
I'd have to be indestructible, and unstoppable because getting trapped into any kind of prison or forcefully held against my will for any length of time would also be the suck.
Additionally, there'd have to be escape clauses, like, for instance, if I got shot out into space, that would also suck after the novelty wore off. The universe is vast and if I got shot off into space, trapped in a black hole, or anything similar, I could easily go 10,000 years and see absolutely nothing of any significance.
There's lots of tricky sticky bits to the 10k deal. If those tricky bits couldn't be worked out, then ...
I'd then take the bling option.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mahatche
Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
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. .....
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
Who says you could only absorb knowledge for yourself? I think a legendary 10,000 year older wise man could do a lot of good as a teacher. You'd become like a Yoda or Buddha type of person. Improving people's lives with your knowledge goes a long way. I get the most gratification from helping people, if I spent 10,000 years as a roaming helper guy, what's self centered about that? Who says you must be an antisocial hermit with knowledge you keep to yourself? Can I ask, how are you going to change the world in this current short life? I think 10,000 years would give you a better chance of achieving change than 80.
As far as death goes I've already lost a lot of people I love in this short life. I've lost a nephew to a health defect, I've experienced deaths by murder, suicide, drug overdose, war, disease, car accidents, and old age, and I still have a good chunk of life ahead of me, so I'm sure there will be more. While it hurts every time, it's never made me hate living my life. it depends on the person I guess. Some accept death as reality, others fall into self pity.
The idea of a simple life isn't hell to me at all though. I prefer it. I'm not materialistic at all. I don't think riches would make me happier. Even if i struck the mega lotto jackpot I'd still live as simple and frugal as possible. The american dream was never really my idea of dream living.
- 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)