"I saw the post on social that presented an observation supported by research that the people who lived the longest were the people with no purpose - people with "life purpose" died of stress-related illnesses in their 60s and 70s. This all started with an observation by an 87-year-old Okinawan fisherman who noted that the aimless souls he saw lived to 100 because they just fished, gardened, and gossiped; they didn't want anything. Didn't chase legacy. Didn't care about making a mark. Just drifted."
"The only choice you get is how you live while the clock is running. Stress is the part of the price you pay for building something that matters. Legacy isn't about ego. It's about contribution. The "aimless" may live longer, but they're spectators in a world that needs players. I'll take fewer years in the arena over a century on the bench."
An observation links lack of purpose to greater longevity, noting aimless individuals who fished, gardened, and gossiped often reached 100, while purpose-driven people died of stress-related illnesses in their 60s and 70s. Some have framed this as proof that purpose shortens life. A counterposition holds that life inevitably ends, and the central choice is how to live: pursue meaningful challenges and accept stress as the cost of building something that matters, or seek longevity without contribution. Legacy is framed as contribution rather than ego. Presence gains depth when actions align with a larger purpose rather than by removing meaning.
Read at It's A Long Road
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]