I am definitely more self-centered and materialistic than the average person, as "not an informed opinion" conjectured, so maybe that's why my opinion differs. However, I still think I'm making a compelling argument. The OP posted this question for a debate, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do, but everyone seems to be taking it personally and making personal attacks on me.Perhaps I should have worded my posts more carefully. One is much more LIKELY to be less mobile and resilient at an older age. And depending on what you want to do later in life, this makes all the difference in the world. If you're content with watching TV half the day, reading books, being with family on holidays, and working out for an hour out of the day, being that age surely won't limit you. I'd rather spend my younger years not (most likely) being miserable for 40 hours of the week, but spending that time to travel, pick up new hobbies, always be there for family to support them (emotionally & financially), and teach myself new things. Sure I'd miss my grandkids growing up, daughter getting married, blah blah, but it's a trade off I'm willing to make. To me, you guys seem to be picking the extra 20 years to justify your miserable lives you're currently living (mandatory personal attack in response to all of yours).
J.R. wrote:
I'll take the 50 million, and Doug Heffernan can die at 50.
Is this an attack on me? You're dying at 50 too.
As for my age, I'm 22. Use that against me as you'd like.