7 ms·
how did you decide staying alive was the baseline, and not more than that?
by the_cat_kittles 13y ago
how did you decide staying alive was the baseline, and not more than that?
- alandarev 13y agoBecause luxury is something we will never have enough of. Might also be due, to the fact that unless it is met, theoretically we cannot "not work" just yet. I would also speculate on why $30 a day. This evaluation is based on the costs of utility services, while those are hugely related to the overall average salaries rather than the cost of material [1]. I.e., the price of utility may and will significantly change, based on overall situation in the country. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
- sliverstorm 13y agoBecause staying alive is the level you inarguably, absolutely cannot go below. It's a rock-solid place to start your argument from, and build upwards.
- the_cat_kittles 13y agoHow long are supposed to live? It's cheaper to die when you are 30. What about human contact- doesn't it seem like someone living in a 250 sq foot cell who never met another person is worse off than someone who dies at 25 but had great friends and a great education? What about psychological health?
- sliverstorm 13y agoIf you target a caloric deficit that will ever so slowly add up and catch up to you at 25-30, at which point you die of starvation- that's going to be a negligible difference, probably even in the rounding error.
- sliverstorm 13y agodoesn't it seem like someone living in a 250 sq foot cell who never met another person is worse off... He wasn't talking about what made for a worthwhile life. He was talking about what is required to sustain life. You can't worry about quality of life until you have taken care of sustaining life
- the_cat_kittles 13y agoi think thats my point- that thats not true
- sliverstorm 13y agoWhat does quality of life mean if you're dead? Anyway, forget about total cost. It takes a certain minimum amount of resources per day to stay alive, whether you intend to live to 25 or 125. Do you disagree?
- the_cat_kittles 13y agoim saying that staying alive might not be the objective baseline its claimed to be. why would it be more important to keep miserable people alive a long time than happy people alive shorter?
- sliverstorm 13y agoAnd I'm saying how long you are alive has nothing to do with how much it costs to keep you alive for one day. Unless you are arguing the ideal lifespan is less than one day.
- the_cat_kittles 13y agoin response to your latest comment, since i cant respond to it directly- even if it costs the same per day to live to 85 as it does to 25, you could decide that instead of living those last 10 years, you spend that money during your first 75
- sliverstorm 13y agoYes. I understand. It is not a complicated argument you are trying to make. The thing is your parent was attempting to establish an INARGUABLE BASELINE below which you CANNOT GO. Not "should not". Not "oh you'll have worse quality of life if you go below" and "oh but wouldn't you be happier if you went above". CANNOT GO BELOW. The purpose of this baseline being, to establish that there is SOME AMOUNT OF RESOURCES that MUST be consumed to sustain life. And, as we know, SOME EFFORT must be expended to secure these resources thus NON-ZERO EFFORT is required to sustain EACH human life. That was the point. So I fail to see what your quality of life discussion has to do with anything.