Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   


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 mahatche
 


To answer your first paragraph...

You could make a difference. a few thousand years of knowledge could insure that you have friends alive for the rest of your time. We currently have ways to replace organs and parts of the body that are advancing fast. I bet, behind the scenes, the government could keep someone alive indefinitely if they wanted. With a few thousand years of knowledge, you could teach the world and advance it's technology to a point that everyone could live forever with you. You would not be lonely. You also would not have to be wealthy for this to happen.

It's time... its only going to suck if you don't know what to do with it.
edit on 27-2-2013 by Arionic because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-2-2013 by Arionic because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
neither

because i would know i have gone insane listening to imaginary people



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
- 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
_____________________________________________________
Examining number one, in ten thousand years you could have gained untold wisdom and intelligence and with it manipulate the power structure of the world into a form where war, poverty and illness has been eliminated. Where the need for wealth has been overcome and the world has embraced what might be called a Utopia of one without wealth or damage to the world or it's inhabitants by the need to acquire. Wealth would become the arts, sciences, literature, an earth built to sustain life, not destroy that which was not profitable. Number one offers more possibilities I think.

Examining number two, a single lifetime, which is still a lengthy time, one could use any 'vice or want' to your advantage or whim. Depending on your disposition, you could be evil or benevolent. A figure like Moses or like Caligula. You could lead or destroy, or simply live a static life doing nothing beyond maintaining your own needs.

In number two you could also bend culture into your wants, by money and power, and the charisma you possessed. You could also make the world a far better place by implementing change by the nature of your wealth and power.

In the end, I believe that it would come down to the fact that temptation can not exist with out inclination or a means. Nor can opportunity..............



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Plotus
 





Depending on your disposition, you could be evil or benevolent


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?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 




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?


Hence the reason for my distaste regarding immortality. The longer you are alive, the more meaningless everything becomes. You begin to see a pattern of creation and destruction that takes all value out of every beautiful thing because you know that the only constant is death - and that you will never see it.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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)


Great answer Op needs to elaborate on the terms and conditions, we need some fine print



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
An advanced aspirant has no desire to live even one more day nor would they mind another thousand. whats the difference? When you know your essential self which is independent of the body you no longer are interested in these kinds of things. If such a deal were really offered you literally wouldnt waste a single thought on it.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

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.


It would seem to me that an admission of excessive longevity would bring about problems concerning the restrictive nature of the offer. In that wealth, fortune, fame and luxury follow which negates the "contract."

As I said, you could live as a nomad basically, never letting anyone know who you really are in order to not breach the agreement. While your at it, you can't let anyone get too close or know the truth as you would be either hunted, revered or feared. Plus you get to watch, sons, daughters, grandchildren, etc. all waste away and die leaving nothing more than tears in rain, while you continue to live a hollow existence devoid of any real human interaction. No, not for me, I'll keep my circadian clock, after all, everything has its season ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I'd pick the first. I don't need material things to make me happy and I can better use my time as well helping others.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   


- 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)


For the record i would pick option 1.

Although i will never age to become old i realise my quality of life will be sub par as a person can only be young once in their life no matter how long its duration.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 





Why does this need to be some mythological figure offering the deal? Why can't it be some magic vending machine


You are nit picking. Regardless the question remains the same. So what is the point of your statement.






top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join