You'll live longer if you?

Question

avoid this risk

adopt this safe behavior

voluntarily narrow the boundaries of your life

allow the government to reduce the number of dangerous choices available to you

Are these statements examples of a pervasive societal and socially acceptable cowardice?

Is thorough reading and serious consideration of them a bland acceptance that cowardice, preoccupation with death, prolonging life as the ultimate priority, is a virtue?

Answer 1

Many in contemporary world believe and/or would have everyone else believe that the authoritarian, bureaucratic elements of our society, namely: Fundamentalist-Scientists, Doctors, Politicians, Corporate Business Leaders, Judges, and the elites of media and entertainment, (essentially all with Money, Power, and Attention), for whatever reason KNOW... and we MUST LISTEN TO THEM!
"Recent studies show..."
$
"A recent poll..."
$$
"Martin Scorsese, Madonna, Oprah, and Sting say..."
$$$
"The President issues..."
$$$$
"Congress..."
$$$$$
"Doctors advocate..."
$$$$$$
"Pharmaceutical companies affirm that in order to be a healthy, normal, human who has overcome Nature one must be prescribed 10 different medicines, which each have 10 side-effects, that in-turn require 10 other medicines..."
$$$$$$$
War on Terror...
You MUST have Democracy at the barrel of an M-16
$$$$$$$$
War on Drugs...
Opium production goes UP in Afghanistan [hmm, that's curious]...
$$$$$$$$$
But as long as we view the likes of Donald Trump as an American Icon, Oprah as a Hero; agree with whatever Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, and Barbara Walters have to say; believe that Congress is acting in the people's interests and not their own, that Doctors are concerned for our health and well-being and not their billion dollar homes and golfing vacations... we are good little citizens!

Answer 2

the first three are decisions you must make on your own, deciding whether the most important part of life is its value (how much fun you can pack in to every second) or longevity (how long you live). The fourth question on the other hand is a definite no. The government has no right to limit your choices as to wheter something is a wise idea or not. unless your choice affects others, it is your choice alone. the government should never have a say in those circumstances.

Answer 3

OK. I was with you until you asked if thorough reading is bland acceptance...now come on, how can that be??? Bland acceptance implies no consideration whatsoever.

Quality of life .... throughout life ..... is the ultimate priority.

Answer 4

Now if you start actually living your life earlier then you will have more time, even though time is more of a concept than an actual reality. You wont live longer if you abandon risk and chance because after you abandon those you are not really, in my opinion, living. Living in my definition is taking a chance wether odds are with you or not . Living your life includes taking chances at death because you "only have 100 years to live." If you live your life in hiding then you are not living at all, only avoiding the certian fact that you will die later.
"Don't fear death but rather an unlived life."
~Tuckeverlasting
Dont live your life in a fear that you will die but in a fear that you will die and not have lived.

Answer 5

Governments protect citizens from themselves. I have no interest in protecting you from you.

Some prefer quantity of life. Some prefer quality of life. Some attempt to have the two intersect. It's a matter of personal choice.

Answer 6

i don't understand the question


but i do know that even if everyone followed those things, they could still be killed by some crazy circumstance.