3 ms·

The use of any specific number of years is, to me, arbitrary. Essentially this argument comes down to hoping to die before old age really sets in. I think for a

The use of any specific number of years is, to me, arbitrary. Essentially this argument comes down to hoping to die before old age really sets in. I think for anyone who aspires to this mindset, it's better described as "I hope to live as long as my body will let me enjoy life, and not a moment shorter or longer." Having seen every member of the last two generations of my family die while I was in my 20's and 30's, I find myself hoping I live as long as that mindset dictates. I also hope that lasts until I'm far older than 75.

zdean 12y ago
I wonder if the author would have picked 47 as his number had he lived in 1900. It seems he's content with the advances that have increased life expectancy since then but feels it somehow inappropriate to shoot past 75. As a counter-example, Frank Lloyd Wright was productive up to his final year at 92: http://www.planetclaire.org/fllw/works.html http://www.planetclaire.org/fllw/works.html
- rayiner 12y ago
  In 1900, a 60-year old white male, like the author, could expect to live to about 75, versus about 80 today. Medical advances over the last century have largely addressed death in childhood or middle age. Vaccinations and antibiotics are probably responsible for most of the increase in life expectancy. I don't think technologies that prevent early death are at odds with the author's argument.
  - mathgeek 12y ago
    I would say that scientific advances would definitely play into the argument. Suppose that modern investments into "reversing aging" pay off to the tune of adding twenty years to the average healthy lifespan, regardless of how many years it takes until we get there (i.e. 20 more years of healthy life, on average). A like-minded author in 21XX would almost certainly say he/she wishes to die at 95.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Sure, but that's a different argument than the one 'zdean made about life expectancy in 1900.
saalweachter 12y ago
This author would have been 7-8 when "My Generation" (with the lyric "hope I die before I get old") was on the air.

zdean 12y ago

I wonder if the author would have picked 47 as his number had he lived in 1900. It seems he's content with the advances that have increased life expectancy since then but feels it somehow inappropriate to shoot past 75. As a counter-example, Frank Lloyd Wright was productive up to his final year at 92: http://www.planetclaire.org/fllw/works.html http://www.planetclaire.org/fllw/works.html

rayiner 12y ago
In 1900, a 60-year old white male, like the author, could expect to live to about 75, versus about 80 today. Medical advances over the last century have largely addressed death in childhood or middle age. Vaccinations and antibiotics are probably responsible for most of the increase in life expectancy. I don't think technologies that prevent early death are at odds with the author's argument.
- mathgeek 12y ago
  I would say that scientific advances would definitely play into the argument. Suppose that modern investments into "reversing aging" pay off to the tune of adding twenty years to the average healthy lifespan, regardless of how many years it takes until we get there (i.e. 20 more years of healthy life, on average). A like-minded author in 21XX would almost certainly say he/she wishes to die at 95.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Sure, but that's a different argument than the one 'zdean made about life expectancy in 1900.

saalweachter 12y ago

This author would have been 7-8 when "My Generation" (with the lyric "hope I die before I get old") was on the air.