Fluther: Would you rather win the lottery or live twice as long ...

Would you rather win the lottery or live twice as long as you would normally?

Asked by SavoirFaire (28840

) April 9th, 2016
20 responses
“Great Question” (5

)

For the lottery case, assume that the jackpot is $50 million. For the extended life case, assume that the aging process is slowed down (so you don’t start declining until near the end of your extended lifetime). And for statistical purposes, keep in mind that the average person lives to age 79 (though you may have personal circumstances that change this number significantly, so try to adjust for that).

Follow-up questions:

(1) If your answer is “win the lottery,” how low would the jackpot have to get before you changed your answer?
(2) If your answer is “live twice as long,” how high would the jackpot have to get before you changed your answer?

Follow this question

Send to a friend!

Topics: games, decisions, would you rather

Observing members: 0

Composing members: 0

Answers

is this a serious question? Who in hell would want to live to 160?

trolltoll (2570

)“Great Answer” (2

)

I’d gladly take $500,000 (or more) and die at 79.

I have no interest in living to 150-ish.

cookieman (41610

)“Great Answer” (2

)

@cookieman Let us know if your answer is still the same when you’re 78.

2davidc8 (10189

)“Great Answer” (0

)

@2davidc8: What are the benefits of living so long? Everyone I know and love would be dead. Presumably I’ll continue to deteriorate physically and mentally, so I’ll likely be impaired in some significant way. Sure I’m alive, but what is the quality of that life at that point?

cookieman (41610

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Does that magic that keeps me alive keep my body reasonably healthy? Because otherwise the second option sounds like of more a curse than a gift.

Mariah (25883

)“Great Answer” (3

)

@Mariah: Exactly.

cookieman (41610

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Response moderated (Unhelpful)

I don’t have to sue you, I’m taking the lottery winnings. My life might be two thirds over, but that final third would be awesome; no holding back.

Here2_4 (7152

)“Great Answer” (2

)

It’s “win the jackpot” regardless of the number. 160 years is too many years. I would not curse my great-grandchildren with having to take care of my senile ass.

Seek (34805

)“Great Answer” (4

)

The money please so I could live in comfort till my subscription to the air is over. I would then make sure my next of kin will be taken care of until they too come out from the other side.

ZEPHYRA (21750

)“Great Answer” (1

)

@Mariah Good question. Assuming that the aging process is slowed down so that you don’t start declining until near the end of your extended lifetime.

I have edited the question accordingly.

SavoirFaire (28840

)“Great Answer” (0

)

The money hands down.

SQUEEKY2 (23119

)“Great Answer” (1

)

I’d either have to work or have savings and pension to last me until the end of my days if I choose to live twice as long, and so there’s a good chance I’d end up in poverty. Therefore, I’d choose the lottery.

jca (36062

)“Great Answer” (1

)

Response moderated (Off-Topic)

Since the question stipulates the cessation of aging, I’d probably take the time instead of the money. But then again, I would like to think this decision over. The upcoming 80 years don’t look all that inviting when it comes to quality of life.

stanleybmanly (24153

)“Great Answer” (1

)

There is nothing more miserable than burying your own children so I will opt for the money. If I haven’t spent it all I will even leave some of it for them.

flutherother (34524

)“Great Answer” (1

)