Skip to main content

Is it better to live old with moderate success or die young and change the world?

After a good, long run, we have decided to close our forums in an effort to refocus attention to other sections of the site. Fortunately for you all, we're living in a time where discussion of a favorite topic now has a lot of homes. So we encourage you all to bring your ravenous love for discussion to Chuck's official Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram. And, as always, you can still post comments on all News updates. Thank you for your loyalty and passion over the years. These changes will happen June 1.

I was thinking about this today, so I thought I'd bring it up here too.
Do you think it's better to have enough success to take care of your family and whatnot and die around 80?
Or is it better to just unload something that's going to change the way the world thinks and runs for centuries, but you croak around 30?

Like that whole 27 Club, with Hendrix, Joplin, Cobain, everyone else in it. Is that blast of 5 years or so of superhuman success and legacy worth checking out early.

Alternatively, if any of them lived, would it have hurt their name lasting? Like if Hendrix had lived to be 70. The only thing I can think to compare it to are The Rolling Stones and Keith Richards. He seems to be mostly known now as a joke, like a "That guy's still alive?" thing, no body sees him as some amazing guitar player anymore, that's for sure. Maybe old people do, but that's based more on their memory of him.

Anyways, I think all that fame and superstardom is a bunch of bullcrap. You might be able to change the course of a river by plunging in some super huge boulder, but you can do the same thing with a bunch of little pebbles over time.