I disagree. The human brain plans perfectly for the future. The brain knows what kind of world it lives in: A world where you could be crushed or eaten in an instant. A world where your life could end at any moment. Hyperbolic discounting is the best bet for living in such an uncertain world. It’s better to do the eat drink and be merry bit, as long as the person’s brain is also wise enough to realise that the chances of living till 50 is greater than the chances of being hit by a bus tomorrow :)

Let’s say that we can use a formula to express overall gratification for our entire lifetime.

Let’s make up some fake number range of 100-200 representing the min/max subjective gratification one can acheive from life.

If I were to strongly suggest from scientific evidence, can’t possibly prove as everything is subjective, I’m just leading up to an additional factor, that an overdose of Morphine will provide one with a gratification rating of 20000! That’s 100 times as much gratification as one could possibly expect or hope for in their lifetimes. However, the down side is that you’d die within minutes. How many people would chose this option? I would imagine very, very few.

This would add two additional ignored factors. Future value of further experiences unrelated to the object in question and satisfaction with the amount of gratification I will receive without receiving the object of gratification at all. If I were a person with an excrutiating medical condition I might choose the Morphine route. If I had lived a life of personally subjective gratification with little dissapointment throughout I would most likely expect that to continue (that expectation increasing in proportion to the length of time I’ve already lived it) and would not consider the Morphine route even given that I did believe it would be 100 times greater than the entire duration of my life because I’m satisfied with the life I’ve lived.

Point being that the example of cardiac arrest patients not reforming is that it’s also possible that extended future experience could actually be depreciating the future value of the object in question.

Clearly there’s a more complex mathematical formula at play that our brain invokes.

Future value is not just a SUBJECTIVE valuation of an object now versus getting a greater value from the object later. It has also been pointed out that it must include a probability discount of actually getting that object later, a potential discount for less enjoyment when getting the object at a later date. It also must include an adjustment for preceived value of continued future experiences and the personal satisfaction level of what the person has already felt they’ve received and will continue to receive completely unrelated to the object in question.

Of course that’s just an overly complicated way of saying, “Do I live in the now or am I happy enough with what I have now and/or hopefully will get later?” But then that sounds like I haven’t really thought it through very carefully and am being irrational if I choose the now because of course I don’t appreciate what I’ve got and the future will always be better.

Note- No judgment on governmental programs or legislation is implied by my comments. The usefulness of those things is a completely different debate.

- I would rather die living than live while I’m dead- Jimmy Buffet

I have known people who have lived their lives to both extremes. Some are dead, others may as well be as they are miserable in life. Harkens to mind the Bhuddist philosophy that seeking the middle path may be the best choice.

Temporal myopia is a scientific term for a focus on the present which most, if not all, human beings have, simply because we live in the present and might not be that future CEO or ambitious enough individual aiming for something in the future. It is based on present personal circumstances, present personal preferences, and present personal lessons from experiences in the past, which has already happened. Taken in that context, tt is completely rational, in the sense that the individual’s decisions are not geared towards future benefits but benefits which can be derived from what is here now.

The time when the focus on the present becomes an irrational focus is when the individual with the focus is also focused on a future benefit or benefits. The individual would then make decisions to try and bring that benefit or benefits closer to the present reality based on present circumstances and whatnot; or they will hold those wants close to heart while not changing anything of their present to accommodate and realize them, making them nothing more than ideals.

The man with heart disease risks who continues to live with detrimental factors and enjoys those factors for their present benefits (the taste, the ease of laziness, etc), without as much care for living longer without heart disease risks is not irrational. But the man who wants to live longer, stay in shape, and or stay handsome without the problems associated with heart disease … yet still eat greasy foods and not exercise … That makes him irrational.

Like someone said, to judge something ojectively (in this case, as rational or irrational) would make it subjective as there are a lot of of factors which might hold a place in the situation – many of which factors are relative to other factors. It had been slightly presumptuous to deem all individuals of temporal myopia as irrational, when only the factor of ‘decision making for future benefit/s geared towards future benefit/s’ in play. Not everyone meticulously plans out their tomorrows, or follow through with whatever plans they’ve managed.

This is now off-topic, as it is a reply to another reply and not to the article itself.

EVERYTHINGZEN said: “Alcoholism is a disease, I think that’s bit of a stretch from not being able to keep your hands off the twinkies. And the support groups do work, but they will not be as effective as you would like to see because they are dealing with addicts. Drug and alcohol addictions are very serious and very different from the inability to stop eating chocolate, not to mention much more dangerous.