Would you be willing to give up one of your arms or legs(up to the knee or elbow) for an extra twenty years of moderately healthy life? What about your sight or hearing?
Not arm, not leg, not sight. Maybe hearing.
As I’ve always said, I’d give my right arm to be ambidextrous…
If I knew I were going to die tomorrow, I’d give any of those things up in a heartbeat. But if I’m going to live to be 120, I probably wouldn’t bother; 100 years of living with one arm/leg doesn’t sound better than 80 years of living with both.
left nut.
Once they develop Steve Austin-level prosthetics, I might be willing to part with my lower left leg. The left knee is pretty dodgy anyway. So’s the ankle, for that matter.
Of all the choices, legs are the most easily replaced and would have the least impact on my life, so I went with that. Sight and arms would impact quality of life considerably. Hearing to a lesser extent, though I think if I was deaf, I’d be constantly paranoid about my surroundings.
Either leg, with a little training you can move normally. I put left, although I’m wondering if I can hold off my surgery until I get problems in that knee, which I can then solve, Gordian style. It might cut back on mobility, but then maybe not, have you seen Pistorius (well, let’s say him from last year)? Sight is the most crucial.
Yeah I’d make that deal for another 20 years.
Gotta read books.
Gotta listen to music.
Gotta walk.
Gotta write.
Left arm it is.
None of the above because as Socrates said, “Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.”
So honestly, I don’t care that much the extra twenty years of life. I’d rather live a better quality life without any of my senses/body-parts missing that is twenty years shorter.
It depends - are those years from 80-100 - or can you just stay in your 20s (ie healthy and active).
The main problem with all these ‘amazing long-life magic potions’ is the extra years are all at the end. AS Horace Rumpole said ‘There is no pleasure on Earth worth giving up NOW for 5 more years in the Sunny Acres Nursing Home’.
I voted none of the above because I want a guarantee they will be quality years and not spent in a nursing home before I give up part of my body.
I would give up my left leg. I consider the use of both my hands to be too important to give up. My sight and hearing are also too precious. I could learn to walk with a prosthetic leg, however. And if I kept my right leg I could still drive. So my left leg it is.
Old people are practically deaf anyway, and they seem lively enough. 
I’d easily give up my hearing to have another 20 years with my boyfriend. I’d try to convince him to do the same. Although maybe he’d rather give up his left arm, it’d certainly be easier to cuddle that way. No more pins and needles!
I’d give one of my balls, and maybe a couple of toes.
A lot depends on how many good years you had to give up the use of the limb for, in order to get the extra 20 years. Still in my 50s, I wouldn’t. Ask me again in 20 years, and I’d probably think it was an excellent trade.
Can I give the extra years to my significant other? That would put us on fairly even ground for the number of years we’re expected to live. (He’s 22 years older than me.)
If I can so fight the hypothetical, I’d give anything that left me able to communicate. An arm, a leg, an eye, whatever. As long as I can still talk and hear and understand.
If I have to use the life myself, no thanks. I certainly don’t expect him to live that long, and I’d rather not live an extra two decades without him.
Having an impaired left hand, I would give it up in a heartbeat.
Not sight. And, it depends on those 20 years – am I still virile during that time?