← All dilemmas
🌊survival
Preferiresti vivere 60 anni in perfetta salute, potendo realizzare tutti i tuoi progetti senza ostacoli, oppure 90 anni affrontando limiti fisici progressivi, ma con la possibilità di vedere crescere le generazioni future?
🌍 Join 1 people who already voted
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
In high-stakes situations, the calmer option and the safer option often diverge. Choosing “Scegliere 60 anni di salute impeccabile, sfruttando appieno ogni opportunità senza restrizioni” prioritises a hard but certain outcome; choosing “Optare per 90 anni con salute precaria, accettando sacrifici per estendere il proprio impatto sul mondo e sulle persone care” gives more weight to a softer but riskier outcome.
Worth asking yourself
- Who pays the price you avoid?
- Is the risk small enough to gamble on?
More Survival Dilemmas
- A lifeboat holds 8. There are 9 of you. Nobody volunteers. Someone proposes the eldest goes — they look at you and nod.
- You can go back in time and kill one person as a baby — preventing a genocide that kills 10 million people. The baby is innocent.
- A plane is going down. There are 6 survivors but only 4 parachutes. You have one. Do you give yours up or keep it?
- Your group of 13 reaches a fortified shelter — already occupied by 8 strangers at capacity. They refuse to open. Your group includes children. You could force the door; they have no weapons.