4 ms·

Extend your analogy out in time: Three people in their 90s, laying side by side at their deathbeds. One filled their life with friends and experiences, the othe

Extend your analogy out in time: Three people in their 90s, laying side by side at their deathbeds. One filled their life with friends and experiences, the other did nothing but work, the other raised children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Now who is the winner and who the loser?

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Now who is the winner and who the loser? Depends on who's awarding the points. Could be either one of them. Could be all of them. It's not like they were competing, or even playing the same game.
- RugnirViking 6y ago
  The point of the example is to show that there is no objective measure of success in life
whatshisface 6y ago
The one with kids has visitors so probably them. Old people can get pretty lonely if they don't have descendants. It's not talked about often but it's a really important part of not being miserable when you're 90. When your body isn't good for anything anymore and you can't even enjoy spending money, being happy about the people you created is more or less the only thing left - and you can really be happy about it. But that's only if you have a good sense of empathy for the happiness of people you care about.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Huge assumption that someone has visitors just because they had kids.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    I guess you could call it a necessary but insufficient condition.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    More likely your kids visit than your party buddies from decades ago. Honestly it's a tiny assumption, nobody's perfect but it takes being terrible for your kids to avoid saying goodbye on your deathbed.
tuatoru 6y ago
None of them is winning; they're all dying. Winning is a category error at this point.
strken 6y ago
It seems like you're firmly on the side of the one with kids, but outside the rhetoric this is an interesting personal question to ask yourself. It puts the opportunity cost of working into perspective and makes you re-evaluate the importance of your work.
- silexia 6y ago
  As someone who partied away my teens and early twenties, then spent seven years working 14/7/365 founding a successful company, and finally got married and had 2 kids a couple of years ago, I can tell you that the family is by far the most meaningful and important. I regret the drinking and partying. I wish I had prioritized family sooner.
- munificent 6y ago
  > It seems like you're firmly on the side of the one with kids Not really. I think it's an interesting mental exercise and can see the pros and cons to all paths. I think the optimal path is a mixture of all three. Work hard enough to afford the life you want to live (ideally at a job that is itself gratifying and meaningful) and then fill the rest of the time with experiences shared with friends and family.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> Now who is the winner and who the loser? Depends on who's awarding the points. Could be either one of them. Could be all of them. It's not like they were competing, or even playing the same game.

RugnirViking 6y ago
The point of the example is to show that there is no objective measure of success in life

whatshisface 6y ago

The one with kids has visitors so probably them. Old people can get pretty lonely if they don't have descendants. It's not talked about often but it's a really important part of not being miserable when you're 90. When your body isn't good for anything anymore and you can't even enjoy spending money, being happy about the people you created is more or less the only thing left - and you can really be happy about it. But that's only if you have a good sense of empathy for the happiness of people you care about.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Huge assumption that someone has visitors just because they had kids.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  I guess you could call it a necessary but insufficient condition.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  More likely your kids visit than your party buddies from decades ago. Honestly it's a tiny assumption, nobody's perfect but it takes being terrible for your kids to avoid saying goodbye on your deathbed.

tuatoru 6y ago

None of them is winning; they're all dying. Winning is a category error at this point.

strken 6y ago

It seems like you're firmly on the side of the one with kids, but outside the rhetoric this is an interesting personal question to ask yourself. It puts the opportunity cost of working into perspective and makes you re-evaluate the importance of your work.

silexia 6y ago
As someone who partied away my teens and early twenties, then spent seven years working 14/7/365 founding a successful company, and finally got married and had 2 kids a couple of years ago, I can tell you that the family is by far the most meaningful and important. I regret the drinking and partying. I wish I had prioritized family sooner.
munificent 6y ago
> It seems like you're firmly on the side of the one with kids Not really. I think it's an interesting mental exercise and can see the pros and cons to all paths. I think the optimal path is a mixture of all three. Work hard enough to afford the life you want to live (ideally at a job that is itself gratifying and meaningful) and then fill the rest of the time with experiences shared with friends and family.