[Jack]

Several posters noted that Falwell's demise may have been hastened by excess consumption. That triggered an idea for a new poll!

Let's suppose you're sitting in a comfortable chair, libation of choice at hand, feeling quite satisfied with the way things are going. Before you appears the supernatural being of your choice - an angel, a demon, or whatever else.

You, being the cautious sort, somehow confirm that the critter is legitimate - and is exactly what he/she/it claims to be.

Now, the being offers you a choice. I don't know why - maybe you're just special.

Anyway, you can live to 72, doing (or not doing) pretty much whatever you want. If you want to have bacon three times a day, eat cake and ice cream often, never exercise, smoke a carton per day, and drink a gallon of bourbon daily, you still live to 72.

Or, you can live carefully and go to 80. You watch what you eat, emphasize fresh, organically grown fruits and vegetables, and avoid fats and red meat. You don't smoke or drink. You exercise and do all the things a healthy lifestyle implies.

Now, no switching back and forth! You can't go to 71.999 and suddenly become a health nut! You get one choice, you're stuck with it, and no changes. No, you can't cheat.

No, the being will not allow you an OTHER choice!

So - what do you choose?

[dinopello]

The one thing I'm sure of is my supernatural being of choice would be Jeannie (a genie) from I Dream of Jeannie.

On the rest, I don't think I really care as much about 72 or 80 nearly as much as what life is like, how happy my family and friends are together, how interesting and challenging life is etc.

I really like fresh fruits and vegetables. I would rather eat fish than anything with an occasional steak or pork product. You feel better when you are fit so I guess for all that I would choose 80.

[dissimulo]

Assuming that a long health decline does not precede death in each scenario, I'd go with 72. If there are 10 years of declining health and capabilities in the 72 year or in both scenarios, I'd go with 80.

If the supernatural creature doesn't want to get into details, I'd choose 80 since it is safer.

When you deal with the devil, you need a very detailed contract and a good lawyer.

[Narz]

The myth is the taking care of yourself is all about living a few extra years. The reality is that you FEEL alot better thruout your whole life (and the extra years are just bonus).

I'd choose taking care of myself. Sure, I'll indulge in a few vices. But I got my hard liquor drinking, junk food eating, staying up all night days out of the way in college. It was a fun time but I ended up with a stomach virus and other health issues that lowered my quality of life for a few years afterwards.

The allure of the free and gluttonous life isn't very alluring when you actually let go and indulge for a few years. I'm glad I realized that early in life.

[WildRose]

Too easy, Jack!

(But then, hmmm, is chocolate a no-no on the healthy-to-80 choice; perhaps we could make an exception. Ah, nevermind, I am currently weaning myself off the stuff, anyway.)

Ultimately, though, I guess I would have to go with the healthy-to-80 lifestyle. The big 5-0 is coming up for me next year, and I am thankful every day that I have kept myself active and strong all these years. And, MOST of my favorite foods are of the nutritious variety, so I think I could swear off the unhealthy ones easily enough.

Now ask me if I am ready to give up lipstick and hair dye...

[PolestaR]

I'd probably commit suicide - if there is a god afterall... I'm kinda fucked in the afterlife department.... it would be better to go to hell, train, and wait for the other 6 billion soon. Head start you see.

[Pops]

Well Jack I think we need to talk.

I guess I would stump out my cig, pour out my drink, head to the head and stumble to bed…

I'd obviously had too much for one night.

[SevenTen]

Eight years is not really enough difference between the two choices. I picked 72 without a problem.

Here's a more interesting choice:
1) Live the next five years doing whatever you want without negative consequence to yourself, then you die
2) Live the rest of your "natural" lifespan, never taking risks or chances and never accomplishing anything

Maybe I'll create a poll.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SevenTen', 'E')ight years is not really enough difference between the two choices. I picked 72 without a problem.

Here's a more interesting choice:
1) Live the next five years doing whatever you want without negative consequence to yourself, then you die
2) Live the rest of your "natural" lifespan, never taking risks or chances and never accomplishing anything

Maybe I'll create a poll.

[hubbertspeak7777777]

72? Ha! I probably won't even live that long. I'm 21 and I already have ulcers and am on the verge of getting diabetes. I also have a history of cancer and obesity in family gene pool. I'll be lucky to see 60.

Really, this question just boils down to quality vs. quantity. Would you rather have a fun short life or a long boring one? I'd choose the short, yet entertaining life.

I'd be okay with just living another 5-10 years from now and then dying, as long as I get to do WHATEVER (and I mean whatever) I want. For me, it's about the quality of the years, not quantity.

You know what they say, it's better to burn out than fade away. I'd rather be like Jimi Henrix than Crosby, Stills and Nash.

[hubbertspeak7777777]

[quote="SevenTen"]Eight years is not really enough difference between the two choices. I picked 72 without a problem.

Here's a more interesting choice:
1) Live the next five years doing whatever you want without negative consequence to yourself, then you die
2) Live the rest of your "natural" lifespan, never taking risks or chances and never accomplishing anything

Maybe I'll create a poll.[/quote

Option 1, as long as the death isn't slow and painful. Maybe another 5 years without consequences and then a quick decapitation or something like that.

[smallpoxgirl]

I'm 33. I'll consider myself very fortunate to make it to 52. Bad mojo coming to the world in the next 20 years.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hubbertspeak7777777', '7')2? Ha! I probably won't even live that long. I'm 21 and I already have ulcers and am on the verge of getting diabetes. I also have a history of cancer and obesity in family gene pool. I'll be lucky to see 60.

[hubbertspeak7777777]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hubbertspeak7777777', '7')2? Ha! I probably won't even live that long. I'm 21 and I already have ulcers and am on the verge of getting diabetes. I also have a history of cancer and obesity in family gene pool. I'll be lucky to see 60.

[I_Like_Plants]

Working class people in the Empire are very lucky to see their mid-60s. My parents, who grew up middle class, and were middle class until about middle-aged (under the old useage of the term, their 40s say) when they fell to working-class status. This changed their DNA to working-class DNA, and they both kicked it at about age 63.

The rich are the ones living into their 80s and all this shit, they can afford to work a mere 40 hour week, get health care at the preventative stage rather than at the crisis stage, and enjoy a basic lack of stress and sense of security (because they have it)

I'm all for killing off the rich as early as possible, it will do oh so much for social justice.....

[SevenTen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', 'B')tw, french hangmen during the first revolution had an extra expence paid as they had to replace wicker buckets cause heads were chewing them through periodically.

[Newsseeker]

I would like my lifespan to end around 65. No need to spend the last years of my life shuffling my feet and talking to myself from Alzheimers while forgetting the names of those closest to me. I'll still be talking about PO in that state but that's about all that I will be doing.

[Pops]

Wasn't it Studds Terkel at 80, that when asked: "who wants to live till 80?", replied:

"… well most anyone 79."

[WildRose]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'W')asn't it Studds Terkel at 80, that when asked: "who wants to live till 80?", replied:

"… well most anyone 79."

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newsseeker', 'I') would like my lifespan to end around 65. No need to spend the last years of my life shuffling my feet and talking to myself from Alzheimers while forgetting the names of those closest to me. I'll still be talking about PO in that state but that's about all that I will be doing.