The chronic excuse for not getting things done is, "I don't have time." If our time were doubled, would we, in the words of Larry the Cable Guy, "get'er done"?
2006-07-08 15:28:37 · 14 answers · asked by John (Thurb) McVey 4 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
Your question is not specific enough.
If the person is a homer simpson type whose job involves pressing the "Y" on the keyboard once a day, then, assuming the double lifetime person does not have any physical limitations, he would accomplish the pressing of the Y button twice as much as his single lifetime counterpart.
If, however, you are talking about unique accomplishments that are soley resultant of individual's desire and free will (not assigned work or required work or collateral accomplishments that are simply result of being alive like breathing or going to the bathroom), then the results would depend on the personality of the individual. Those who are currently go-getters would likely continue to do so and indeed accomplish twice as much. (assuming they are still physically capable) Those who make excuses will continue to make excuses, but they would still accomplish about twice as much. If I only do 1 thing a year and live twice as long, then I'll still double my accomplishments.
The more interesting psychological point is your statement "The chronic excuse for not getting things done is, "I don't have time." This is really only valid from one person's point of view. The person demanding or thinking that the work should be done. The person providing the excuse is really saying that other activities or accomplishments take priority over whatever particular accomplishment the excuse covers for. So are they really accomplishing less or are they just not accomplishing what you want them to do? From their point of view, they are accomplishing exactly what they want to do. Procrastinators are not lazy. They just prefer to do what they want instead of what others want or require.
2006-07-08 16:04:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
In my life the problem is not insufficient time but the priorities at the moment. If making a living is more important than spending time with friends and family, that represents time lost to the important things in life, family. We must all make daily decisions on priority. Not getting things done is only a problem when the less important tasks are accomplished ahead of the the more important tasks.
Many of the answers posted refer to the physical limitations of the human body. These limitations are dictated by nature and maybe for good reason. (theory of evolution).
I myself would like to life twice as long. If I had enough time, then I would change my life knowing I have time to forefill my goals and obligations to my family.
2006-07-08 23:15:26 · answer #2 · answered by Interested_Ron_yahoo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Many people accomplish very little after the age of 80. If people lived twice as long, nursing homes and hospitals would be more overrun, and it would only serve to get doctors and HMOs richer.
2006-07-08 22:32:11 · answer #3 · answered by Gestalt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question!
NO. People seem to become jaded 'for life' at a fairly young age, around 30, and so living longer would just prolong a pointless life.
It's not how much time you have, it's what you do with the time you have that counts.
2006-07-08 23:01:35 · answer #4 · answered by fresh2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends - what quality of life is the 2nd half going to have?
I still think there would be procrastinators that don't get things done. And with life being so long, there would be more to do too.
2006-07-08 22:33:58 · answer #5 · answered by curiouschick18 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on if we still aged at the same rate. People can only do stuff till they are a certain age, and living longer without more "youth" wouldn't do much good.
2006-07-08 22:32:35 · answer #6 · answered by Kiko 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think so. We would still be too old to do stuff once we were in our 80's or 90's, and if we lived to be 200, think how over populated the world would be.
2006-07-08 22:33:12 · answer #7 · answered by MrMarblesTI 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Longevity in no way relates to accomplishment. The two are permanently disconnected.
2006-07-08 23:08:07 · answer #8 · answered by homerunhitter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - we would know we had that much longer to accomplish something and would just goof the extra time away.
2006-07-08 22:32:25 · answer #9 · answered by impossible 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think we'd be less productive...we'd constantly say "oh i'll do it later, i've got 200 years to accomplish everything" but that is coming from a procrastinator's viewpoint
2006-07-08 22:31:55 · answer #10 · answered by L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋