4 ms·

The problem isn't time though, it's energy. Even if the day might have 16 hours, you're still limited on energy.

• renewiltord 6y ago
  An interesting take on life extension is stimulant drugs. TANSTAAFL but if you live the crucial years of your life at 100% instead of 75% and you die at 60 instead of 80, you actually break even in how much life you led, even though you had 20 fewer years.
  • cloogshicer 6y ago
    I don't think it's possible, or at the very least sensible to attempt quantifying life like this. Personally, I wouldn't want to live this way.
    • renewiltord 6y ago
      To each their own, but I think two hours with my loved ones over one hour with my loved ones is a quantifiably superior option. May we both be happy through our chosen methods.
      • cloogshicer 6y ago
        > I think two hours with my loved ones over one hour with my loved ones is a quantifiably superior option. It's not that simple though. There are so many assumptions in this statement, that aren't easily proven/disproven. Is two hours of kissing your partner really better than a minute of kissing? Are the circumstances also relevant? Maybe two moments aren't even comparable at all? You seem to have (as so many people do nowadays) the assumption that all of life is completely quantifiable, measurable (as soon as we have the technology). Theory of science shows that this is a belief, which can never be proven or disproven. Personally, I believe the opposite, that no matter how great our technology gets, there are certain things, that will never be measurable. So I disagree with your above statement, that one of them is the quantifiably superior option. I think they can't be compared at all.