Fozzie_Bear posted:
I believe what the albatross believes. That you are here in the moment. You live, procreate, and die. Whatevers next is next not now.
But I have found that for every time I live each moment like my last, I am confronted by another moment where I was wishing I hadn't. Live each moment like your last and sure, you will be right once, but you may be wrong far more often.
I will take it a step further. If you were having a heart attack at, say, 55, do you think you would change the amount of red meat you had eaten in your life, if you could? I think its safe to say when confronted with something like that, anyone would be wishing the same thing. The argument, then, must be that you are just as likely to die from an accidental death or something outside your control, so whats the point of hedging and cutting out pleasure when it wont change that I will get hit by a car at 37? I understand that, but I would counter it with by pointing out that we still hedge when it comes to those things. We exercise caution crossing the street or driving, (though it would be quicker driving fast or running across the street, leaving more time for enjoyment) get aches and pains checked out, (doctors, long annoying process) and generally avoid anything that is deemed 'risky.'
I would argue that the only difference is the definitively observable causal link between the action and the consequence. You can blame a fat uncles heart attack on bad genetics, but you wouldnt blame a kid dying in a car crash on his weak bones, ("they just had to give sometime, poor kid"
simply put, you can see it. I guess my whole point is, if you are reasonably cautious with things that have a direct, visable cause and effect, but very risky with things that have slow, indirect and invisible causal relationship, than it simply comes off as both disingenuous and naive. Mostly naive though.
-Murron (truly)