Skip to main content


SoNak reshared this.

I am not sure which one I would choose.
"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"
Interesting idea overall especially for a thought experiment not sure about it being a story/movie though if that was the idea
Just a thought experiment. I don't think it alone could be a story. I can see all kinds of drama possible in this setting though.
The Second World seems to be easier choice because it is closer to our "normal" one but what if there is clear and considerable difference?

If people were guaranteed extra hundred years of life in controlled environment... I am not sure many would easily refuse. Just like we don't refuse certain constraints in our life which provide us safety compared to, say, some places where many don't reach their thirties.
I don't think fear of death will matter most but opportunities.

E.g. some people will know they will be able see their grand-grandkids grown up. Or get involved in some project which otherwise would be unfeasible simply because it would take too long. Which might be something important (science, some great project, spending more time for education) - or more mundane like taking 70 year loan on bigger house :)
I would pick the second BUT I think it requires risk assessment and critical thinking all the way through school. Most important to me is availability of mitigating strategies and significant consequences for putting the community at risk.

I have no problem with seat belt, drunk driving or even vaccine passports as long as strategies are easily available.
@Cass M Yes, of course. It tends to be vicious cycle though in my opinion - extra safeguards allow people to "worry less" (which often means less critical thinking) and this sort of attitude calls for even more safeguards as people seem to be less able to handle the risks themselves.