3 ms·

i think thats my point- that thats not true

• sliverstorm 13y ago
  What 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 ago
    im 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 ago
      And 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 ago
    in 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 ago
      Yes. 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.