At 86 (87 in January), guaranteed five years sounds good even without the money. With it it seems obvious.
I’m healthy, my life is good, and I can already afford most of the things I want. I mean, sure, if I got a free billion dollars, I could find some use for it, but the marginal utility isn’t actually all that much.
And I’d feel an obligation to do something useful with it. So it would be a job. And I’d stress about giving it to the wrong group.
No, I wouldn’t take this deal. I’m 40 and not exactly rich but comfortable. I would rather live 40 more years at my current income than five years as a billionaire.
I am sorry to hear you have low job satisfaction. Seriously.
Before I retired about ten months ago, I mostly liked my job. I am now an American with above average retirement income by U.S. standards, which means far above average by world standards. So of course the answer is no.
But what if my wife and I lost all our income, except maybe for social security? I get that poverty is tough, but still, no to the billion. Sorry kids, but I believe in the dignity of labor. Living off money you didn’t earn would be a bad example to set for our grandchildren. And helping out your impoverished parents, when they really need help, is setting a good example.
I believe you are looking at things in a limited view. Your life is worth more than money. There are people who are worth many billions of dollars and whatever they have done to help family and friends doesn’t seem to be curing cancer and creating peace on earth. If you truly believe it is a sick and decaying society, then you should work now with whatever resources you have to change it.
One big problem with the 5 year deal is that many good things that you could do with a billion dollars wouldn’t truly reach fruition and show results until you’re already dead.
That’s a problem with planting trees, too. Do it anyway.
I haven’t voted in that one. But I think I might have to take the money – because what if I don’t live any longer anyway? I think I’ve got a decent chance at fifteen years, though maybe not much longer; but maybe I don’t.
If it’s a guarantee of five – hmm. For five years I wouldn’t have to worry about either my money or my life; whereas now I’m worrying about both. But that end stretch would be pretty unnerving. Except would I also not need to worry about dementia, or any other horrible way to go that I might well have trouble getting out of? A guarantee of five years in no worse shape than I’m in now, and a quick clean death at the end of it, and no money worries except deciding how to allocate the gifts but five years to do that in – if that’s the deal, I think I’d take it.
Absolutely I’ll take it. I’m fifty with no kids, and I suspect both my parents will have passed away within the next five years. I’d give 95% of the money to various causes right away and then travel, staying in good hotels, pretty much non-stop.
I’m having second thoughts. Above I said that at 86 I would take it. But then I realized that I might have the same thing at 81. Hmm.
How about we only take part of the money? I would take 10 million and die in 500 years.
It is an interesting question-because millions of young people kind of have to think about the question themselves. I am thinking of members of the military. They are kind of having to make that decision or at least potentially make that decision as young people. At least for a subset of the people in this thread. Many in the thread are weighing the good they could do with a billion in a foundation after they pass balanced by the loss of some of their life. A soldier jumping on a grenade or taking on a dangerous mission is making a similar decision-his/her life for the good of others. Of course the actual balance is different, but it is kind of the same question.
I think effective altruists/utilitarians would probably take the deal.
Elon Musk is a tool, but he’s correct when he pointed out how difficult it is to find the maximum possible value of a charitable investment. The most effective way to spend a billion dollars is a huge question. And shouldn’t you just invest it to make it even bigger so you can help even more people in the long run? The logic kind of falls apart at a certain point. When I look at people like Sam Bankman-Fried who ostensibly made every decision “risk-neutral” on the off chance it might earn him billions of dollars to donate, I think that worked for him right up until it was his own ass on the line. Or as he put it in a recent interview, he failed to accurately calculate the risk of the potential downsides, i.e. life in prison.
The issue is that my own life has value to me. I don’t think I’m much of a utilitarian. There are easy utilitarian choices with few downsides and then there are situations like this. Well, I want to live.
Hell, I’d accept a billion even if I died inside of a month.
There are SO MANY LIVES a billion dollars can save. My life for all of those? That’s easy math. It would be great to get credit for the charity, but so long as my friends and family are in the loop, that’s the main thing.
I’d certainly set some money aside for my loved ones to make sure they’re set — so long as they don’t blow it all on luxuries.
But yeah. I’d be dead but countless people would live.
Can I use the billion to invent resurrection technology that would be used on me in 5 years and one minute?
edited to add – upon reflection, that’s fighting the hypothetical, isn’t it? Never mind.
Also, even if you tried, i don’t think 1 billion dollars will develop resurrection technology in 5 years.
As the saying goes, spend most on hookers and blow, and waste the rest. But seriously, what’s the problem with spending money on luxuries? That’s one of the reasons to amass wealth, isn’t it? Plus, you keep the economy humming along.
Every dollar spent on luxury kills untold humans.
From The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty
-
First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
-
Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
-
Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
-
Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.
I’m 71 and no way. Both my kids are doing fine. Getting any chunk of a billion dollars would just screw them and my grandkids up. I don’t need it, I hardly spend the money I have. It’s from growing up with a depression-era father, who was poor.
Given my health I expect to live a lot longer than five years, so there’s that.
As for charity - by the time I set up the charity, and checked to make sure the money was being well spent, and publicized the charity to get more, I’d have a few days left. If a billion bucks would save the world, the rich companies can do it in a second. Bill Gates is doing great stuff, but even his money is not making a dent.
So no and no.