3 ms·
There are so many things wrong with this perspective I’m not sure where to start. Overall it sounds very much like the climate change deniers’ arguments — who c
by orev 7y ago
There are so many things wrong with this perspective I’m not sure where to start. Overall it sounds very much like the climate change deniers’ arguments — who cares if we all die, as long as we make some money beforehand.
You can not compare Si Valley salaries to anything, since they are irrelevant. The salary may be high, but so is the cost of living there, so it’s basically a wash. And Si Valley is not the center of the world, so comparisons to the relatively few people who live there are meaningless.
Who cares if it consumes 2 years working time if you die 10 years earlier than you would have. Also exercise gives you many health benefits, including cognitive function, so you will be more healthy and more productive when you actually are working.
Cost to go to the gym?! You can exercise at literally 0 cost. Do some push ups, go outside for a run, etc.
- lostmsu 7y ago> Who cares if it consumes 2 years working time if you die 10 years earlier than you would have. Your 10 years number is significantly overblown. First result in Google is: > they found that those who did 75 minutes of moderate-intensity activity weekly lived 1.8 years longer, on average, compared with people who did no physical activity If you believe that, it puts it into 1.25 (no exercise) vs 1.8 years, which still does not include any preparations.
- orev 7y agoDeath is an awful yardstick to measure anything other than truly fatal conditions. Exercise can be the difference between spending 50 years with major health problems, joint and back pain, diabetes, etc vs spending them pain free and being able to enjoy life.