Ok I’m gonna take the life angle. My first thought being, I can build up one hell of a Roth IRA with 100 years in the workforce. After that, I will have a few mil on hand, house was paid off 60 years ago, and still have 55 years of livin it up.
Colour me surprised by the amount of people who’d take the cash.
Being a rich guy (not even the richest guy) versus having superhuman abilities? How is it even a fair contest? Even without the extra 100 years never having to worry about your health through supernatural means is something cash monies can’t buy.
I agree. I thought of this after posting a couple days ago. We should all answer the question, and add our age, family status and financial outlook (status). This might put some reasoning behind the answers.
I chose the money. I am 33, soon to be wed, have friends that are like brothers to me, don’t believe in any afterlife, and my financial situation is fine (will be working many years still). My health is also quite admirable. I’ve done much, am curious to see what is next (always), would love to see space, future gadgets, my great-grandkids, etc - but I would rather do something now that could benefit them later, versus just hang around and witness what I was never able to do.
I am curious (and I don’t mean to ask this smugly), to all the ones who chose life, and said that this life doesn’t afford them enough time to do all the things they want to do: Are you doing right now SOME of those things you want to do? Would having the extra years be the “ok, now I am going to try to do all those things because I know I have enough time to live” sign? I’m curious because if you aren’t doing those things now/already, you are kind of undercutting your own argument.
i alway choose time over money.
More it’s the idea that you’re a long time dead.
He didn’t say your health would be perfect, he said you wouldn’t catch anything fatal. A bit of a difference.
Oh, and @ChaseRansom:
19, single, no close friends, student, optimistic about finding a good job. I’m sticking with the money.
Checking in again with more facts then:
29, single, no job at the moment but not too pessimistic about it.
I’ll take the money all the way!
Not me. I’d want the extra years even if I spent them living essentially the same life I have now.
I chose the money not because I want to be rich - I’m not interested in being especially wealthy, though not having to work again certainly has a lot of appeal.
I chose money because life sucks, and living it any longer sounds like endless misery to me.
I’m taking the dough. The idea of growing old slowly would only mean that all the ailments that comes with age would have to be suffered that much longer.
Pass the $100 mill this way!
I’d choose the 100 years. You can always make more money. How do you get more time?
Me too, up to a point: 100 mil is a good point to choose the money.
Earning 3000 e instead of 2000 e per month doesn’t have much of a positive impact in one’s quality of life, especially if the 50 % more dough means longer, more stressful hours at the job and the job polluting much of your “free time”. You’ll still pay for your house for decades, need to plan your budget, spend time thinking about money etc. But $100 000 000 is a completely different deal. It lets you become a full-blown idealist / benefactor /slob, whatever.
Male, 32, dirt poor (full-time student), wife and a kid. Very good health. No belief in afterlife.
I’m not sure the century-choosers know what they’re bargaining for. I can easily imagine living plus 100 years would be all kinds of hell. I might very well opt for suicide at some point. Very old people often lament the loss of family and friends, many feel left alone in an ever-changing world, and they are nowhere near 170 years of age. On the other hand, we have plenty of data on how a $ 100 000 000 impacts lives. I assume many super-millionaires are extremely happy at their wealth, even if they still strive for the billion bucks. Being able to live anywhere, travel anywhere, eat anything, read anything etc. must be nice.
I’m a pragmatic person. The money would have tangible, concrete, immediate effects on where and how I live, how I can provide for my loved ones, what toys I have and how I can preserve wildlife. The 100 years extra might yield nothing much, just loss and change hard to cope with.