Good for him. I'd rather have a shorter life well lived than a long one just for the sake of longevity.

Apr 21, 2012 -- 10:58PM, solfeggio wrote:

I think you'd have to define 'well lived' as opposed to not well lived if you want to make a point.

I could define it for myself. You'll have to define it for yourself.

From reading the information provided about the gentleman in question, it seems as if he has (so far) lived a productive, happy life.

Good for him.

After all, there's no reason why a very long life shouldn't be well lived, too.

I go for quality, not quantity. You, or the old guy, can do what you want with your lives.

Apr 22, 2012 -- 1:14AM, solfeggio wrote:

You seem to be implying that living into what we call old age means we somehow drop off the productivity scale.

And you seem to believe we all can live to 115 and run marathons. I'll go by what happens to most and admit that productivity starts to drop off around 75 and goes even faster after 85. One person living to 115 changes none of that.

As I said, what, exactly, defines a 'well lived' life?

For myself - Although I'm in my 71st year, I do like to think that I'm still productive in many different ways, and still giving something back to my family and to the community!

That's right, it's something you have to define for yourself.

My grandmother lived to be 102.  She outlived her husband by a good 30 years and outlived her only child - my mother - by ten.  She had cateracts and severe arthritis, and spent the last five years of her life in a "home."  The few letters I got from her (dictated to a cousin of my mom's) usually ended with, "I'm ready to meet my Maker, I hope He hasn't forgotten about me."

Is it possible to live TOO long?

We live as long as we live.  If we prosper while we live then one can claim a productive live.  If we are able to give ourselves to the betterment of others then our life is worthwhile, however long it is.