posted
The other thread made me think of it and people seemed to be answering, so here's it's own thread. My answer is a little... sappy.
I will know I have lived too long when I no longer can thoroughly enjoy a meal of fettucini alfredo with garlic braised shrimp. I will have lived too long if I can no longer laugh at Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First" routine. I will have lived too long if I can no longer savor the scent of a fresh-clipped rose. I will have lived too long if I can look without amazement at Cirque du Soleil's Quidam. I will have lived too long if my eyes do not water at the final 20 pages of Steve Kluger's Last Days of Summer or the ending of The Green Mile. If I can observe the antics of children without grinning or the antics of politicians without grimacing, if I no longer seek new books and music to experience, if I answer questions before I think, if I can no longer learn, if I can no longer teach, if I can no longer run and jump and lose myself in the woods, I will have lived too long. At that moment I hope to die and not before.
I am a sappy, cheesy, fool. Sorry.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I can observe the antics of children without grinning or the antics of politicians without grimacing, if I no longer seek new books and music to experience, if I answer questions before I think, if I can no longer learn, if I can no longer teach, if I can no longer run and jump and lose myself in the woods, I will have lived too long.
This line is almost poetic.
I just want to live long enough to see interstellar travel...
posted
If I could choose how long I would live and if my rate of aging adjusted for my new lifespan, then I probably wouldn't choose to live over, say, a hundred and fifty years. I certainly would not choose immortality.
While I do think that there are an infinite number of things to learn and to experience, I also think there's something to be said for a deadline. Part of what makes a lot of experiences great is the amount of time you put into them. We consider certain things once in a lifetime experiences because of the time we must commit to them. If time was not a factor, then our commitment would be somewhat less valuable, and that could make the whole experience less valuable. Think about it this way: let's say you were taking a test. You could have a semester to learn the material and prepare for the test and your success would mean something because of all the effort you concentrated into that semester. Or, you could take ten years to learn the same material. Doesn't your accomplishment seem lessened? (This might be a bifurcation--I don't think I've thought this through well enough.)
Also, over a long period time we would have to lose so many people. We would watch our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren be born, live, and die. Everyone close to us would pass before us. With all that death, I feel that we would either need to stop forming close bonds with people or we would need to harden ourselves to death. (Is this another bifurcation?) Neither option is particularly appealing to me; both would cheapen life.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
