Who would you rather be?

MooMoo2 · 2018-02-16, 23:20

Suppose you're reincarnated and are given these choices:

1.) Being anyone that was born before 1700. This can be a Roman emperor, the King of France, William Shakespeare, or anyone else. You'll have the same genetics, environment, and opportunities as the person you choose, but you have the freedom to make your own decisions that are different than the decisions that person made.

2.) Being a middle-class person in a first world country that was born in 2000. Your childhood is free from major hardships, such as abuse, severe bullying, starvation, or the death of a close family member. Although you have no physical or mental disabilities, you won't have any outstanding talents either. You turn 18 this year and are relatively free to live your life however you want.

3.) Being a member of the bottom 10% of society in the year 2300. We'll assume that humanity hasn't gone extinct yet, but nothing else will be known. It's possible (but unlikely??) that even the poorest, most oppressed 10% in the world at that time will have a good basic income and access to cures for diseases that are currently untreatable.

Whichever you choose, everything that you know now will be like a dream. You'll have a vague memory of things like antibiotics, cars, and the Internet throughout your life, but you'll have no knowledge of the details and cannot pass on any of your current knowledge to someone else.

With that said, which option would you pick?

kladner · 2018-02-17, 04:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooMoo2

Suppose you're reincarnated and are given these choices:

2.) Being a middle-class person in a first world country that was born in 2000. Your childhood is free from major hardships, such as abuse, severe bullying, starvation, or the death of a close family member. Although you have no physical or mental disabilities, you won't have any outstanding talents either. You turn 18 this year and are relatively free to live your life however you want.

I take it that this description is not intended to represent today's eighteen-year-olds' life experiences. Rather it is generic; though lacking any outstanding talents suggests a limited personhood. Are these to be uniform, stamped out clones who are unaware that abuse and severe bullying and the death(s) of close family members even exist? All of them still do, middle, or upper or whatever class one identifies as.

Is the bargain something like, "You will be a dullard and your life will have been artificially insulated from reality?"

MooMoo2 · 2018-02-17, 05:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

lacking any outstanding talents suggests a limited personhood.

Not necessarily. For example, you can have a passion for basketball and practice your skills. You'll be able to play on your high school's varsity team, score some points, and contribute to your team's victory over your rival high school. However, since you're not outstanding, you won't be the highest or the second highest scoring player on the team, and your team won't be playing in the state championship playoffs.

Quote:

Are these to be uniform, stamped out clones who are unaware that abuse and severe bullying and the death(s) of close family members even exist?

No. They'll be aware of those things, but neither they nor their close friends will have experienced it first hand. They may read a story in the local news about a former classmate's parents (let's call him Steve) who were killed in a car crash, but the only thing they know about Steve is that they were in the same math class a few years ago.

Quote:

Is the bargain something like, "You will be a dullard and your life will have been artificially insulated from reality?"

The "born in 2000" choice is definitely the dullest option of the three (and probably the safest, but no risk often equals no reward). However, that person can still live a somewhat interesting life by travelling the world, learning new skills, starting his/her own small business, picking up some hobbies, etc. He/she will be fully aware of what's going on in the world, including all the bad news such as terrorist attacks and mass shootings.

LaurV · 2018-02-17, 06:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooMoo2

With that said, which option would you pick?

Not clear if I can chose the person in case 1. If I can, and it is not a random pick by the "system", I will take 1. I already have a very particular guy in mind (and no, is is not something like "I want to be some of your ancestor and never have children", hehe).

Technically, at that time, even the kings had a poorer life than an average guy has nowadays. Like no current water, no refrigerator or microwave, no coffee machine

whatever. Also, if the "system" picks for me, at the time there were very few people with "safe" (by the standards of the time) lives, the other were slaves, peasants, wild people living in tribes, migratory birds (like gypsy) etc., so the chance (at a random pick) would be that I end a slave or a peasant farming hard on some asshole's estate.

Picking the future may be the same, we are optimists here, but we don't really know if the anarchy or slavery will not come back, in spite of our future ability to heal more diseases than we can now. It seem, if the "system" pick for me in the first scenario, that the second ("a contemporary Joe Average") scenario is the safest. I am quite reticent to lose my actual knowledge, but I assume I will have the advantage of the age (being young again, yay!

). And... being Joe Average won't be a problem, I was a Joe Average all my life, so being a ~40 years younger Joe Average may actually be a big advantage...

edit: crosspost

MooMoo2 · 2018-02-17, 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

Not clear if I can chose the person in case 1. If I can, and it is not a random pick by the "system", I will take 1.

You may choose a specific person in case 1. It is not a random pick unless you want it to be.

M344587487 · 2018-02-17, 10:52

Option 2 is the safest and most boring maybe, but it's the obvious choice for me. I'm not a big history buff so option 1 is out, there's no burning desire to be present at some big event or time period. Option 3 seems pointless, with no proper memories of the present there's no motivation to be in the future to see how things turned out. There's an argument to be made that in the future the average life expectancy might be 140 or more, and universal income (or some other factor) means you have way more hours in the day to do whatever you want. But who wants to live forever.

retina · 2018-02-17, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by M344587487

But who wants to live forever.

Does he? I thought he was on first.

Sorry, but without a question mark at the end I just couldn't resist.

Dubslow · 2018-02-17, 12:18

Allow me to pull my best davieddy impression: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE

Dr Sardonicus · 2018-02-17, 15:18

I'm puzzled. I thought you could only be reincarnated after you had died. So being reborn before 2018 doesn't seem to be an option.

I have pondered the question of how a historical figure (say, Abraham Lincoln) might fare if born in today's world. Being reborn as some personage from days gone by, but in tomorrow's world, might be an interesting prospect.

Nick · 2018-02-17, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I'm puzzled. I thought you could only be reincarnated after you had died.

Perhaps you can be reincarnated in the present as well.
Perhaps we are all one and the same person...

The Carnivore · 2018-02-17, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by M344587487

But who wants to live forever.

No one will. Even if you don't commit suicide and avoid accidents and murder, the heat death of the universe will kill you.

I'm still amazed at the number of people who voted for living in 2300, though. I'm going to take the optimistic route and assume that humanity will have either prevented or innovated ourselves out of things like pandemics, asteroid impacts, nuclear war, and resource depletion. Heck, being in the top 10% would suck if you're one of the few thousand survivors of the apocalypse.

Even considering that, who would want to be in the bottom 10% of society? The bottom 10% today are living on $2/day: http://blogs.worldbank.org/developme...anged-how-even
Are they really better off than the bottom 10% in 1700? Maybe, but not by much, and I don't see income or wealth inequality decreasing in the foreseeable future. Things would have to improve an awful lot for the bottom 10% to be better than the median person in a developed country today. It may happen by 3000, but 2300 is just too soon.

View Poll Results: I would choose to be...
Anyone born before 1700	5	26.32%
An average guy born in 2000	7	36.84%
Born in 2300, but in the bottom 10%	7	36.84%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

2018-02-16, 23:20	#1
MooMoo2 Aug 2010 27E₁₆ Posts	Who would you rather be? Suppose you're reincarnated and are given these choices: 1.) Being anyone that was born before 1700. This can be a Roman emperor, the King of France, William Shakespeare, or anyone else. You'll have the same genetics, environment, and opportunities as the person you choose, but you have the freedom to make your own decisions that are different than the decisions that person made. 2.) Being a middle-class person in a first world country that was born in 2000. Your childhood is free from major hardships, such as abuse, severe bullying, starvation, or the death of a close family member. Although you have no physical or mental disabilities, you won't have any outstanding talents either. You turn 18 this year and are relatively free to live your life however you want. 3.) Being a member of the bottom 10% of society in the year 2300. We'll assume that humanity hasn't gone extinct yet, but nothing else will be known. It's possible (but unlikely??) that even the poorest, most oppressed 10% in the world at that time will have a good basic income and access to cures for diseases that are currently untreatable. Whichever you choose, everything that you know now will be like a dream. You'll have a vague memory of things like antibiotics, cars, and the Internet throughout your life, but you'll have no knowledge of the details and cannot pass on any of your current knowledge to someone else. With that said, which option would you pick?

2018-02-17, 10:52	#6
M344587487 "Composite as Heck" Oct 2017 2×11×37 Posts	Option 2 is the safest and most boring maybe, but it's the obvious choice for me. I'm not a big history buff so option 1 is out, there's no burning desire to be present at some big event or time period. Option 3 seems pointless, with no proper memories of the present there's no motivation to be in the future to see how things turned out. There's an argument to be made that in the future the average life expectancy might be 140 or more, and universal income (or some other factor) means you have way more hours in the day to do whatever you want. But who wants to live forever.

2018-02-17, 12:18	#8
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3×29×83 Posts	Allow me to pull my best davieddy impression: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE

2018-02-17, 15:18	#9
Dr Sardonicus Feb 2017 Nowhere 4,643 Posts	I'm puzzled. I thought you could only be reincarnated after you had died. So being reborn before 2018 doesn't seem to be an option. I have pondered the question of how a historical figure (say, Abraham Lincoln) might fare if born in today's world. Being reborn as some personage from days gone by, but in tomorrow's world, might be an interesting prospect.