Poll of the Day > What is the age at which death is no longer that sad?

(+) Yeah! (+)

At what age do you start start saying they lived a good life when they pass?
---

I'd say 65 is a good cutoff for that. 60 is generally considered a little young in the developed world

never.

Really, never.
---

It matters not the age but the glory with which you die.

-9 months

I think after four and a half months in the womb Im a little weird about it

Death's always sad if you care about the person.
---

Viking_Mudcrap posted...

never.

Really, never.

PMarth2002 posted...

Death's always sad if you care about the person.

---

PMarth2002 posted...

Death's always sad if you care about the person.

---

PMarth2002 posted...

Death's always sad if you care about the person.

No, it's not. I had a grandfather who had a stroke and lost the use of the left-side of his body. He was absolutely miserable for the five-ish years he lived after that (all in a nursing home where he could do basically nothing except watch TV). His eventual death was not sad, it was a blessing and I was happy that his suffering was over. Likewise, when my other grandfather died, he was in his late 80s, had had a series of medical issues over the previous few years, and was basically tired of living. His death wasn't sad, just a natural end to a full life.

Death isn't always sad - it all depends on the circumstances.
---

darkknight109 posted...

PMarth2002 posted...

Death's always sad if you care about the person.

No, it's not. I had a grandfather who had a stroke and lost the use of the left-side of his body. He was absolutely miserable for the five-ish years he lived after that (all in a nursing home where he could do basically nothing except watch TV). His eventual death was not sad, it was a blessing and I was happy that his suffering was over. Likewise, when my other grandfather died, he was in his late 80s, had had a series of medical issues over the previous few years, and was basically tired of living. His death wasn't sad, just a natural end to a full life.

Death isn't always sad - it all depends on the circumstances.

Even in those circumstances, I would be sad. Like Id be happy they were free from pain. But Id still be sad that I cant see them anymore. Not in the normal sense, at least...
---

It's not really an age thing. It's more a matter of whether or not they feel they've lived enough of a life and can go happily. Dying before that is sad because you feel like they didn't get to finish living.

_AdjI_ posted...

It's not really an age thing. It's more a matter of whether or not they feel they've lived enough of a life and can go happily. Dying before that is sad because you feel like they didn't get to finish living.

It's extremely rare for people to go to their grave completely fulfilled in life. Even people in their 80s and 90s

It's more about accepting that life isnt perfect and things wont always necessarily go your way

No options for 0 or 1?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Even in those circumstances, I would be sad. Like Id be happy they were free from pain. But Id still be sad that I cant see them anymore. Not in the normal sense, at least...

I hadn't been able to see either of my grandfathers for years prior to their death. Physically their bodies were still here, of course... but "they" weren't really here anymore. Not in a meaningful sense, anyways. Call it their soul being gone, call it them being mentally checked out, but however you want to title it any zeal for life they had (and both of them previously had quite a bit) had long been snuffed out by the time their bodies caught up to the rest of them.
---

I don't mean that the death stops being sad, just that its less sad. Like someone dying at 80 vs. 20 is a big difference.
---

OhhhJa posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

It's not really an age thing. It's more a matter of whether or not they feel they've lived enough of a life and can go happily. Dying before that is sad because you feel like they didn't get to finish living.

It's extremely rare for people to go to their grave completely fulfilled in life. Even people in their 80s and 90s

Yes, but you can be okay with dying without feeling completely fulfilled. There's considerable middle ground between "good enough" and "that's everything I could have ever wanted to do."

Any number less than 0.

#ProChoice
---

joemodda posted...

Any number less than 0.

#ProChoice

darkknight109 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Even in those circumstances, I would be sad. Like Id be happy they were free from pain. But Id still be sad that I cant see them anymore. Not in the normal sense, at least...

I hadn't been able to see either of my grandfathers for years prior to their death. Physically their bodies were still here, of course... but "they" weren't really here anymore. Not in a meaningful sense, anyways. Call it their soul being gone, call it them being mentally checked out, but however you want to title it any zeal for life they had (and both of them previously had quite a bit) had long been snuffed out by the time their bodies caught up to the rest of them.

I would have been sad when they lost their soul, but it would still be sad when they are physically gone, as well...
---

Different for everybody
---

75-79 isn't a bad run. My nan died of cancer in her 70's and I wasn't that sad as I thought she had a good run and got a lot out of life. My sister died at 26 from cancer and that's a terrible run of course. As for death being sad? That all depends the person and who actually died. I fear my own death the most though.
---

What age do people turn goth?
---

Whatever age Im at now
---

-9 months.
---

9
---

55ish
---

DrPrimemaster posted...

I don't mean that the death stops being sad, just that its less sad. Like someone dying at 80 vs. 20 is a big difference.

Is it? What if you barely know the 20 year old but you've been best friends with the 80 year old for 60 years? What if the 20 year old is a complete asshole but the 80 year old is the nicest person you've ever met? What if the 20 year old has spent their entire life suffering from major chronic illness to the point where death almost comes as a blessing, while the 80 year old has spent their entire life just doing awesome things, and just finished climbing Mount Everest last week?

I don't think age matters at all, as much as quality of life. Death is more tragic when it comes to someone healthy and vital, less when it comes to someone already in decline. It's also more tragic if its someone close to you as opposed to someone more distant, or a complete stranger.

I'd never apply an arbitrary objective numerical value to a point where death becomes "socially acceptable".


---

DrPrimemaster posted...

I don't mean that the death stops being sad, just that its less sad. Like someone dying at 80 vs. 20 is a big difference.

I think it more depends on how they go as well. Due to medical issues you see it coming and have braced for it. They get t-boned in a intersection by a drunk driver its gonna catch you off guard and hit you hard.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

OhhhJa posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

It's not really an age thing. It's more a matter of whether or not they feel they've lived enough of a life and can go happily. Dying before that is sad because you feel like they didn't get to finish living.

It's extremely rare for people to go to their grave completely fulfilled in life. Even people in their 80s and 90s

Yes, but you can be okay with dying without feeling completely fulfilled. There's considerable middle ground between "good enough" and "that's everything I could have ever wanted to do."

Well, quite. I get frustrated sometimes with the "western" way of thinking about death as something to be evaded at all cost, no matter how old you are. I suppose it may be partly to do with how few people who think that way truly believe in any form of reincarnation, but. (I'm a Gaia-theorist, personally, & that ties into how I think of it.)

I had a friend who completed suicide at just 17, whose life was so clearly and painfully cut short before they'd really had a chance at achieving happiness and getting beyond the pain, but I also had a friend who passed away from terminal illness in their 30s who, when in hospice approaching the end, felt like they were happy with going, that they'd set free all their remaining ties to the world and were no longer sad to leave it, they were looking forward to the next step and to finding out if there's anything after. So it really does depend very much on the individual and their approach to both life and death.

For my part... I'm in pain every day. I like being alive, on the whole, but I don't have the same kind of dread of my own death that so many people around me seem to have. I think it does have a lot to do with my beliefs and how many of my loved ones have already died in so many different ways. I'd probably be at peace with it, nowadays, but I wouldn't seek it out.
---

My grandfather had dementia.
It was so sad to see him in that state. At the time, I just wished things could just get back to normal.

While it was very sad to see him pass away, I felt comfort in knowing he didnt had to suffer anymore.
---

OhhhJa posted...

I'd say 65 is a good cutoff for that. 60 is generally considered a little young in the developed world

And retirement ages tend to be past 65...
---

27
---

I voted "90-94" but really, just when they're no longer living a good quality of life.
---

80. Once you've made it that far, any days beyond are bonus.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

OhhhJa posted...

I'd say 65 is a good cutoff for that. 60 is generally considered a little young in the developed world

And retirement ages tend to be past 65...

When "retirement age" was established as a concept in the first place, it wasn't meant to be a point in your life that everyone would reach and then live 20-30 years more afterwards in relative comfort, it was pretty close to the average life expectancy cutoff, so the assumption was that half the population would probably wind up dying before hitting it anyway. And the people who did hit it would mostly only live a few more years before cashing out.

Part of the huge stress on social security in the US stems from the fact that it was never really designed to work with the entire population of a whole generation living off it for decades. Doubly so when you've got generational bulges followed by population bottlenecks - so the needs of more are being laid on the backs of less.

Realistically the retirement age probably needs to be upped at least a decade (if not more), but if any politician actually suggested that the "grey vote" would annihilate them in their next election. And "career politicians" means that no politician is ever going to make the truly unpopular decisions no matter how necessary they might be.

It's the same reason most "reform" policy winds up being bullshit - actual reform ruffles too many feathers and jeopardizes too many lobbyists, so the best we get is the thin veneer of reform that is more glamour than substance.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

OhhhJa posted...

I'd say 65 is a good cutoff for that. 60 is generally considered a little young in the developed world

And retirement ages tend to be past 65...

When "retirement age" was established as a concept in the first place, it wasn't meant to be a point in your life that everyone would reach and then live 20-30 years more afterwards in relative comfort, it was pretty close to the average life expectancy cutoff, so the assumption was that half the population would probably wind up dying before hitting it anyway. And the people who did hit it would mostly only live a few more years before cashing out.

Part of the huge stress on social security in the US stems from the fact that it was never really designed to work with the entire population of a whole generation living off it for decades. Doubly so when you've got generational bulges followed by population bottlenecks - so the needs of more are being laid on the backs of less.

Realistically the retirement age probably needs to be upped at least a decade (if not more), but if any politician actually suggested that the "grey vote" would annihilate them in their next election. And "career politicians" means that no politician is ever going to make the truly unpopular decisions no matter how necessary they might be.

It's the same reason most "reform" policy winds up being bullshit - actual reform ruffles too many feathers and jeopardizes too many lobbyists, so the best we get is the thin veneer of reform that is more glamour than substance.

Eh most old people I know arent cut out for work anyways. Not in the capacity employers want them to be anyways. They generally cant move as fast or work as long without breaks. Ive seen places do their best to weed out older employees due to this.

Though perhaps paying into social security should be optional and allow people to take that money and put it aside for retirement themselves. Keep SS though for those who are in poverty and those who cant save money for shit for whatever personal reasons.
---

22
---