
Why I Hope to Die at 75 - jsc123
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/?single_page=true
======
Red_Tarsius
I don't. I want to live for as long as I can, feeling constant pain, seeing
new technology unfold and be extremely grumpy. I want to be there and help out
my grandchildren with the wisdom of a lifetime. I want my grandchildren to
take care of me and learn to be grateful for their youth.

75 is not that old, both of my grandmas are around/past that age and they are
strong and clever as ever.

~~~
DanBC
> feeling constant pain

Do you currently live with pain?

~~~
tdfx
I was going to point this out, as well. There is a certain level of physical
pain where your ability to focus on anything external to the pain is severely
diminished. Having recently spent time with people in end of life situations,
I have to say that the urge to "fight on" is definitely championed more often
by those who are far removed from the day-to-day details.

------
mathgeek
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
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
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
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
Sure, but that's a different argument than the one 'zdean made about life
expectancy in 1900.

------
bryanlarsen
Happiness peaks at the age of 85.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2384327/Happiness-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2384327/Happiness-
decreases-age-peaks-past-50--85-happiest-year.html)

------
3327
I tell this to my friends, I am much younger but none the less there is a time
when everything is awesome and fun and after that its just pain and no reason
to struggle and try to keep hanging on. Its like a date that is not working
and you are just trying to make it happen to no avail. Enjoy youth, have fun,
love and cherish and when the music stops - its time to turn off the lights...

------
drygh
_> By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life._

The author seems to reach this by asserting that the things he _currently_
values will not be possible when his health declines. How does he know that
these values won't change by the time he's 70? The things we value constantly
change. As kids, we value playing games, eating candy, making friends, etc.
These values change as we become young adults, and seem to change throughout
different stages of life.

The things the author seems to _currently_ value can be found here:

 _> It (old age) robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work,
society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and,
most important, remember us._

Not all people value creativity, and ability to contribute to society equally
though. The author seems to be defined by his work and ability to keep up the
image as a highly-functional, productive, independent member of society. If
this is how you define yourself, then of course old age looks like a loss.

 _> Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles,
consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and
popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and
prolong life as long as possible._

People do this to live a higher quality life too, and the benefits are short-
term. Ironically, not doing these things can arguably "rob us of our
creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world", something
the author seems to value more than anything else.

------
nine_k
This guy for some reason posits that by 75, meaningful life is over. He says:

> _living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled,
> then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but
> is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to
> contribute to work, society, the world._

This makes sense, but I don't see why 75 is the age. One can become the
described above shadow of oneself earlier, or can still be interested in life
and actively contributing past this age.

It would be best to say "I plan to die when I feel old, decrepit, and useless,
or right before it". Well, so do I. But I also hope that both medicine and my
actions will keep pushing the age when this is going to happen.

~~~
guessbest
Age doesn't determine anything. It is just a number. Health is what determines
longevity and that is what everyone wants in abundance. Otherwise, I'm with
you. I want to keep using this mind and body as long as modern science will
let me.

------
cpursley
As someone who's job involved visiting nursing homes in a past life, I don't
understand the desire for general life extension. Most of these elderly folks
were full of tubes and pills (at the cost to taxpayers of $7k per month).

This is no way to live. We as a society should focus less on "life extension"
and more on living healthy lives and curing disease in general. Old age is not
a disease. What's wrong with living and dying with dignity?

~~~
dragonwriter
> As someone who's job involved visiting nursing homes in a past life, I don't
> understand the desire for general life extension. Most of these elderly
> folks were full of tubes and pills (at the cost to taxpayers of $7k per
> month).

"Elderly folks _in nursing homes_ " are not a representative sample of people
in their age range. There is a pretty significant selection bias there.

> We as a society should focus less on "life extension" and more on living
> healthy lives and curing disease in general.

Most focus on "life extension" is on curing diseases of aging and repairing or
presenting progressive damage that results in decreased quality of life and,
ultimately, death, so I don't think the goals you prefer are actually much
_different_ than what focus on "life extension" already means in practice.

> What's wrong with living and dying with dignity?

Nothing. Lots of us would just prefer more of the former, and doing the latter
later.

------
rayiner
The rebuttal to this is life-extension, but I have to say that's not something
I'm looking forward to. First, a future with people living dramatically longer
is going to be one with fewer kids, at least at equilibrium population levels.
Second, it will slow-down social change and innovation. Even if scientific
advancements can help people retain their creativity, anyone at 80 is going to
be burdened by decades of assumptions. Imagine if the generation that stood
behind George Wallace when he said, in his inauguration speech, "segregation
now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," were still the core of our
body politic.

There is no higher social benefit to life extension, at least none that I can
see. It's a uniquely individualist/selfish technology.

~~~
_random_
Please don't be offended, but your vision is very limited. Like early sci-fi
limited. If everything goes well you might end up being a distributed mind
having multiple avatars across different planets. Your kids could be not just
randomly generated gene sequences, but something better. If that fish crawled
out of the water, we can overcome life-extension consequences.

~~~
rayiner
To me sort of thing is like arguing about whether the Flash could beat up
Superman. Not very interesting because it's totally speculative and
unconstrained. I'm talking about the near-term future: it's 2115 and advances
in telomere recycling have allowed us to survive to 200, but we're still stuck
on this rock.

------
xlm1717
I think what this boils down to is an unwillingness to deal with hardship. It
feels more and more like Americans are starting to avoid pain at all costs.

~~~
nine_k
Not only personal hardship: feeling that you are a _burden_ to your relatives
sucks, and it sucks for the relatives, too.

------
jqm
eh... I'll be impressed when he writes the same article at age 74.

