The Poll of the Day


First-ever poll question here. Would love to hear all responses, as well as the reasoning behind them …

Would you rather live until the age of 90, or have eternal life?

Take into account the following factors for this particular scenario:

• Your eternal years would be healthy ones.

• Nobody else would share eternal life with you (so all friends/family/etc would die).

• When you die, there is nothingness. Not a heaven, not a hell. Nothingness.

15 thoughts on “The Poll of the Day”

  1. That is a tough one, but with the nothingness at the end a certainty in this equation I would have to say live forever. Their is already a good chance your going to watch most of your loved ones die off if you live to 90 anyway.

  2. More variables I need before I can answer this.

    1. If I’m living forever, do I continue to age? Or, does my age freeze at the moment I accept eternal life? Does my age freeze when I hit a certain mark?

    I’m 26 right now. I’d be way more willing to accept eternal life (without aging) right now than I will in, say, another 25 years. I’d much rather be a 26 year-old forever than a 50 year-old forever.

    2. Is there a way to end that eternal life? Like by suicide? Or is there NOTHING I can do to die?

    What if there’s a nuclear holocaust in the next 20 years, and I’m left roaming this planet with cockroaches and rats for eternity?

    Sorry for asking for more info; it probably violates the spirit of your question. Had to ask, though.

  3. If I understand you, by accepting your eternal life vision there would be no one else alive – totally alone.
    If this is the eternal life you are creating then 90 is fine.
    If there are others alive, just not loved ones, than eternal life is preferred.
    I am over 50 and I would rather be a 50 year old than a 26 year old. 😉
    Nothing wrong with this 58 year old.

  4. I am guessing I would take the 90 thing. If you could throw in dying in my sleep and that I was still “with it” at that age… that would be the clincher.

    Would LOVE to be 27 forever (or even just for one more year!). However, watching all of my loved ones pass like a billion times over would be a painful life.

  5. Which is too say eternity would give you too much time to become somebody you never wanted to become, and too much time for feelings to disappear. Unless you wanted to build an empire of broken thoughts, I’d suggest you take 90.

  6. Eternal life would probably be awesome for the first few centuries. Maybe more if humankind works to correct all the issues that make life so awful for so many (doubtful).

    But no species, no planet, no star is eternal. And then you’re stuck with an eternity of loneliness, which would be worse than any hell imaginable. I’ll take the 90 years.

  7. Die at 90… The eternity option would be no good. I doubt anyone would want to be stuck at their current age and watch all their loved ones grow old and eventually die.

  8. Just saw the updated criteria. Thanks for clarifying, Jeff.

    No way would I want eternal life. Who would want to live past human existence? 20,000 years from now? During an ice age or when the entire earth is nothing but desert, wandering around, with no one else to accompany me? Torturous.

  9. Jeff, I demand you replace that picture. I will not have my children posted on random blogs on the internet. I have no clue where you could even have obtained the photograph!

  10. This probably violates the rules of this question…but I have always said I would like to live to 150. But if that’s not an option then I’d prob take 90.
    In the book “Forever”a young man is granted eternal life but cannot leave manhattan island…while I wouldn’t want to be imprisoned like that the act of leaving the island would result in the start of the aging process…a form of suicide I guess. I do like that I could get out of my wish if I wanted to…if nothing else so I could be in control over my life.

Leave a Reply