How do ERE people approach death

[okumurahata]

I often find myself wondering if there might be a way to determine an optimal point for the end of life, much like we do for other aspects. Financial simulations typically assume that we won’t run out of money, aiming for a target of $life_expectancy.

However, if at the age of $random_age, you receive a diagnosis that significantly impacts your health to the extent that you can no longer walk, and your beloved activity is hiking, you might contemplate ending your life because the pain surpasses expected happiness (even if your life expectancy remains the same). This may seem like a rational decision, as it appears that happiness may no longer be attainable.

Another example, let’s assume that subject A has $100,000 in savings, and need 10 years to achieve FI, but the pain is so unbearable that he can’t bear it any longer. Would it make sense to endure 10 years of suffering, or would it make sense at some point to use that $100,000 in savings and then contemplate ending one’s life after spending it all?

In summary, is it always best to strive for the maximum number of years to live, or is it possible to consider ending one’s life earlier for a higher quality of life?

Curious to know how to approach this topic from the most rational perspective possible. It seems, intuitively, that trying to maximise years isn’t the best approach. I suspect that there should be some kind of trade-off.

[jacob]

Dying well is certainly a question worth contemplating(*). The ancient Greeks thought that a "happy life" could only be determined in retrospect by its outcome.

One of my favorite ERE quotes speaks of "dying gallantly". Gallantly doesn't seem like the worst way to go under my value system.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

This article is famous: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... 75/379329/ But I wonder whether I'd start to move the goal posts when I'm past 75. Does one age fit all?

The contemporary "rationality"-perspective has a perspective of quality of life vs quantity of life leaning either which way and taking all sorts of measurements to tilt the outcome.

What does "dying well" even mean? Living as long as possible because you can or dying young for a cause are two different extremes.

Insofar I have an answer, it would be to die like you lived. Insofar, living was about optimizing everything, optimize age, then. If living was about doing something meaningful, die a meaningful death.

[Scott 2]

You might be looking for one of these:

The Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) and Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) are measures of population health used to quantify the burden of disease and injury.


A year at 20 is probably worth more than a year at 70. A year at 95 - maybe that's worth nothing? Depending how you weight the years, it argues for taking a riskier SWR then a pure lifespan perspective.

The FIRE caveat being - SWR difference between a 50 year time horizon and a 70 year time horizon is negligible.

[jacob]

Also, to put things in perspective

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/ (based on 20th century returns)

[ducknald_don]

However, if at the age of $random_age, you receive a diagnosis that significantly impacts your health to the extent that you can no longer walk, and your beloved activity is hiking, you might contemplate ending your life because the pain surpasses expected happiness (even if your life expectancy remains the same). This may seem like a rational decision, as it appears that happiness may no longer be attainable.

I’m reminded of that research that showed double amputees and lottery winners were equally happy with their lives after six months.

We seem to adapt to most outcomes.

[DutchGirl]

Let me throw in my two cents here. I think ethically speaking everyone is free to say: I don't want to do this (life) any longer. I'm individualistic like that: if you're in your right mind, you can make that decision for yourself. (And making that decision doesn't automatically disqualify you from being in your right mind; and I don't think there's a god or gods who would judge you for that decision).

But... I also know from a lot of research that the majority of the people find life worthwhile even after losing health or abilities. Humans generally speaking find a new way to enjoy life after some time and adaptation. Ducknald_don refers to this as well. So right now you could look at some diseases or disabilities or age-related deterioration and think: if that happened to me, I wouldn't want to live. And then if it were to happen, you might find that you still enjoy life and want to continue living.

So while it would be okay to plan to say goodbye to life at say age 75 (if in good health up to that point), I would try to keep your options open a bit so that if at age 75 you say: well, I still enjoy this a lot, let's do five more years ... you can, financially.

Now for your example with having $100k and being in pain, I'm a bit stumped. I wouldn't know for sure how to handle that situation. If you're in terrible pain, maybe having $100k doesn't help much either, anyway.

[suomalainen]

Poorly.

Geddit?

[okumurahata]

Insofar I have an answer, it would be to die like you lived. Insofar, living was about optimizing everything, optimize age, then. If living was about doing something meaningful, die a meaningful death.

That’s beautiful.

A year at 20 is probably worth more than a year at 70. A year at 95 - maybe that's worth nothing? Depending how you weight the years, it argues for taking a riskier SWR then a pure lifespan perspective.

It’s true. Someone in their 90s would likely trade all their money to return to their 20s. Time holds greater value than money.

Musing aloud, one might paradoxically suggest delaying those 5 years at a 80% savings rate (FI) until later in life.

To elaborate, Subject A works for 5 years in their 20s (with a 80% savings rate), Subject B works for 5 years in their 30s (with a 80% savings rate), and Subject C works for 5 years in their 40s (with a 80% savings rate).

If the 3 subjects died in their 50s, it appears that Subject C managed to make the most of their prime years. Thus:

Death = m₀(y₀ - w₀) + m₁(y₁ - w₁) + … + mₙ(yₙ - wₙ)

Where mₙ is money at a given year n. yₙ is the worth of that particular year, being y₀ > y₁ > … > yₙ. And wₙ is a parameter depending on worth of work on that particular year (equal to yₙ if you hated your job).

[jacob]

It’s true. Someone in their 90s would likely trade all their money to return to their 20s.

That's not necessarily because being 20yo is better. More like the 20yo package also includes being 30, 40, 50, etc.

If one was to prioritize that way, it makes sense to keep one's best years for oneself and sell one's worst years. Some people peak in high school and some peak in their 20s, but not all ...

[Salathor]

However, if at the age of $random_age, you receive a diagnosis that significantly impacts your health to the extent that you can no longer walk, and your beloved activity is hiking, you might contemplate ending your life because the pain surpasses expected happiness (even if your life expectancy remains the same). This may seem like a rational decision, as it appears that happiness may no longer be attainable.

I would say that, in the case above, the person is lacking the mental resilience to truly thrive in life. Losing a favorite activity should not impact happiness, or else your happiness is too ephemeral. The person in question should instead spend time seeking out a deeper connection with life than "my meaning in life is conducting activity X, and without that it isn't worth living." Even if X is something "valuable" (raising children, being a spouse, being a doctor), that X is being elevated to the status of a false idol in your life and is going to cause long-term unhappiness.

[mathiverse]

Another example, let’s assume that subject A has $100,000 in savings, and need 10 years to achieve FI, but the pain is so unbearable that he can’t bear it any longer. Would it make sense to endure 10 years of suffering, or would it make sense at some point to use that $100,000 in savings and then contemplate ending one’s life after spending it all?

The pain of what? Of working the job to reach FI?

In the case where the person can't work their current job without extreme suffering, I'd suggest the best idea isn't to 1) quit, spend all their money, then commit suicide nor is it to 2) keep their miserable job that makes them want to die, but rather to find a third path.

[okumurahata]

The pain of what? Of working the job to reach FI?

In the case where the person can't work their current job without extreme suffering, I'd suggest the best idea isn't to 1) quit, spend all their money, then commit suicide nor is it to 2) keep their miserable job that makes them want to die, but rather to find a third path.

I agree. However, while seeking a third path, you may either be burning out in a job or running out of money (case 1 or case 2). If case 3 proves successful, you will be treading an orthogonal path to cases 1 and 2, but if you are unsuccessful, which can happen, you will be in parallel with 1 or 2.

[Henry]

Musing aloud, one might paradoxically suggest delaying those 5 years at a 80% savings rate (FI) until later in life.

Save, save, against the dying of the light.

[okumurahata]

Save, save, against the dying of the light.

Do not go gentle into that 9 to 5.

[Henry]

I watched the video of the 104 year old Chicago lady who skydived last week. Not surprisingly, she's now dead. I don't know if it was the skydiving or just the fact that she was fucking 104. Might as well as just thrown her out of the plane without the chute but I guess it's good she got to watch the video. I read the obituaries every morning and the longevity is getting out of control. It's not that unusual to see people living to 100 anymore. You could be 80 still have 1/5th of your life left. It's scary. Old people who are still functional are fucking menaces. I'd rather see a five year old behind the wheel of a car than an 85 year old. Now that I live around old people, my views have changed. I don't car that they are someone's great grandmother. I'd rather see a bear with a bat flying over its head with an old person in its mouth than just an individual old person.

Anyways, how do ERE people approach death? I honestly don't give a shit. Just don't do it near me.

[7Wannabe5]

DIY cremation might be a bit trickier. DIY composting would be easiest; just let the other organisms do the work!

Someone in their 90s would likely trade all their money to return to their 20s.

Only a 90 year old who is still as naive as the average 20 year old. Would you give all your money to return to second grade and the opportunity to share fart jokes with your best friend?

[Henry]

Would you give all your money to return to second grade and the opportunity to share fart jokes with your best friend?

My finger is out, ready to be pulled.

[okumurahata]

I read the obituaries every morning and the longevity is getting out of control. It's not that unusual to see people living to 100 anymore. You could be 80 still have 1/5th of your life left. It's scary.

I’m constantly amazed by how the largest Ponzi scheme in history, commonly referred to as the pension system, is built on the assumption that people will pass away at age ‘n’ and that the base of the pyramid will perpetually expand.

Currently, the worst-case scenario is unfolding: the base of the pyramid is diminishing while lifespans are extending. Governments are elevating the retirement age, but societies can’t extend it indefinitely. We’re leaning on automation and technology to support us, but how many young workers can uphold such a system?
Eventually, society will need more elderly individuals to jump from a plane.

What I don’t entirely grasp, and perhaps my perspective will alter with age, is the fixation on youth and the desire for prolonged life. In simpler terms, should a human live indefinitely if they have the means to do so? Or should society reconsider its stance on death, possibly viewing it as something less undesirable, perhaps a shift that could lead to more equitable resource allocation in favour of the populace?

Instead of regarding ending one’s life as an action reserved for those struggling with mental health issues, does it hold merit to contemplate suicide in a rational manner, considering whether the outcome may lead to a more positive result for both the individual and society as a whole?

[chenda]

You remind me of this guy

https://youtu.be/HhBkC6B9I2U?feature=shared

[Henry]

In simpler terms, should a human live indefinitely if they have the means to do so? Or should society reconsider its stance on death, possibly viewing it as something less undesirable, perhaps a shift that could lead to more equitable resource allocation in favour of the populace?

As relevant as the discussion is, I think the lobbying power of the pickleball industry will prevent people from even raising the question.