Would You Rather: Survive a fall from a plane with no parachute or Survive being hit by lightning twice?
Would you rather Survive a fall from a plane with no parachute or Survive being hit by lightning twice? "Survive a fall from a plane with no parachute" or "Survive being hit by lightning twice" — neither option is desirable, so the real question is which is less terrible. The first option, "Survive a fall from a plane with no parachute", has a certain appeal that is worth unpacking. It promises something — a capability, a freedom, a knowledge — that most people go their whole lives without. But the promise is not free. Every gain in one dimension requires a corresponding sacrifice elsewhere, and the extreme category tends to make those sacrifices particularly vivid. You would have to live with the consequences every single day. And then there is "Survive being hit by lightning twice". Not better, not worse — just different in ways that matter. This option asks you to give up something specific, and the specificity is what makes it hard. Generic sacrifices are easy to agree to in theory. But "Survive being hit by lightning twice" names exactly what you would lose, and that precision is uncomfortable. In the extreme category, this kind of discomfort is the whole point. Here is where it gets personal. The choice between "Survive a fall from a plane with no parachute" and "Survive being hit by lightning twice" is not really about the options themselves. It is about what you.