<p>Option 1: You live your life for the length that you would have had you never had this choice. You will never be unusually wealthy; any other details of the rest of your life are up to you and the factors that will act upon you.</p>
<p>Option 2: $100 million is deposited in your bank account tomorrow morning. From the moment the transfer is made, the remaining amount of time you have to live is halved. You are unaware of how much time this is.</p>
<p>Let us assume that you would get the money, and the terms of your death would occur as bargained. What would you do?</p>
<p>On the one hand, I wouldn't want to sell precious life for meaningless wealth. On the other, using the money for entirely selfless purposes would do a lot of good, and I would be willing to sacrifice to improve the lives of so many others.</p>
I may have subconsciously pulled it from elsewhere, but as far as I know, it occurred to me as an original idea for a short story. Unfortunately, I lost the story while writing it, so I may need to restart it. However, after starting the story, I saw a movie that was somewhat similar to my idea, with a different proposal, so I might not follow through.</p>
<p>If I was choosing based on personal fulfillment, it would be option 1. I want to live as long as I can. If it was for the good of the poor, though, which is what I will dedicate my life to, then it is tough. With option 2, I can do a lot of good (though I only know I have half as much time as I otherwise would have). Surely I would die for the great good of the many. However, with option 1, I can still do a lot of good, potentially. One can influence the lives of many and change systems without becoming wealthy. Thus, there’s a potential for doing more than $100 million worth of work.</p>
<p>It’s a hard choice, but I’d likely go with option 1.</p>
<p>I’d take option 1 for personal fulfillment as well. There’s nothing I could do with $100 million on myself.</p>
<p>I’d go option 2 if trying to be charitable. With those lost years, it would be possible to make more than $100 million difference in social welfare, but most probably you could make a greater impact with the money. Sort’ve a risk/reward kind of thing.</p>
<p>But I think I would be selfish and go with option 1.</p>
<p>Honestly, I would choose #2, but for altruistic purposes. I would never work and devote all of my time and energy to travel around the world and help those in need in other countries, like many in Africa and Asia. I am highly un-materialistic, so aside from basic supplies, the money would go towards these charitable causes. The relief and support that I would be able to provide, along with the joy of knowing that I’ve helped others, would more than compensate for the shorter life.</p>
<p>Option #2. Since I intend to live forever, ∞/2 = ∞.</p>
<p>Being serious, it would be a very hard choice. I would choose #1 if they both worked out in the way you first think of on reading them, but there are a number of ways this could go wrong. For example the money could be stolen or lost in a financial crash, “unusually rich” could be defined in global terms, dooming you to a life of poverty by American* standards, etc.</p>
You will never be a millionaire. Anything else is up to you. You could end up a modestly paid doctor, or you could be sweeping streets. Live your life as a normal person. The money is not stolen.</p>
<p>
For the sake of the proposal, we’ll say that it doesn’t matter. You can either receive it with no one ever questioning why, or win the lottery for an amount that will equal $100 million after taxes and paying a fee for a lawyer to retrieve the money for you, so everyone doesn’t know it was you that won.</p>