Higgins Versus Klosterman XI: Earth vs. the Moon

You have won a prize. The prize has two options, and you can choose either (but not both). The first option is a year in Europe with a monthly stipend of $2,000. The second option is 10 minutes on the moon.

Which option do you select?

That’s a clown question, bro.

I’m hesitant to even answer this question in its original form because I suspect there might be a typo.

On the one hand, you can go to the moon. The MOON. You could bounce around, realize all your childhood dreams, see a sky filled with more stars than you can imagine, and bring back moon rocks with alien diseases that will destroy humanity. Okay, hopefully not the last one. But this a) insanely cool, and b) something you almost certainly wouldn’t be able to do otherwise. You’re more likely to win a Nobel Prize than to walk on the moon; in fact, almost anything is more likely. Jesus had as many apostles as there are people who have walked on the moon (12). You basically get to break the rules of life to get to do this, and by all accounts it is a life-changing experience.

On the other hand, you can go to Europe. That sounds great, right? And they’ll pay you to do it! Well, first off, Europe isn’t the moon. But you get to be there for a year, rather than ten minutes! Well, the thing about that year is… you’re not going to be buying any principalities on that stipend. $2,000 a month? That’s $24,000 a year, which in America qualifies as borderline poverty level. If you’ve got visions of this Euro-trip as walking through your private gardens, fine dining in Barcelona, tasting wines in Bordeaux, all-night clubbing in Berlin, and so on… well, no. Because you’re basically going to be poor for a year. Did you know that the price of a beer in Oslo is £6.78? That’s $11.00 at the current rate of exchange. Have fun with that.

In this case, I’d roundly reject the Europe option. I’ve lambasted your stipend, but the truth is that you could have an absolutely awesome time on that money, and people do have an awesome time on that kind of money traveling in Europe. No, better money could help–we’ll talk about that in a second–but with the given hypothetical, I’d take the moon in a heartbeat.

The reason basically comes down to the fact that I don’t need this free choice in order to attain a year in Europe. If I wanted to do it, I could do it. I could get a job there, or even save up the $24,000–a lot of money, sure, but basically the price of a basic new car. You can have an Accord, or you can go to the moon. Accords are highly attainable. Going to the moon is not. Purely on the rarity of the experience, going to the moon is far more valuable. For the rest of your life you can say you went to the moon, or you can say, hey, I dicked around in Europe for a year… which is what a lot of people do.

Whoa, you could be like these guys! No way! Or you could be like NEIL ARMSTRONG.

I’m not trying to say people should reduce their decision-making process to “I should do whatever no one else has done,” because that would be crazy. But I’m just trying to bring out a particular point of emphasis in this question.

What would happen if we changed the question to a $20,000 stipend? Now the question becomes more interesting. $20,000 isn’t quite kingly, but it’s certainly a sumptuous sum for one person to spend a month. I actually don’t even know how you’d be able to spend that money, so that’s a separate hypothetical. Private jets? Wimbledon first-row? I don’t know. But the question now becomes more balanced, because it’s unlikely you’d be able to get this option on your own. It’s not quite as unlikely as going to the moon–in fact, nowhere close–but still far enough out of the realm of the imaginable for most of us.

So, would the extra money sway me? I almost wish it could. But it wouldn’t, and I don’t think an increase to $200,000 would make any difference, either (would that money even make a difference?). Going to the moon is a dream of mine, and if all I get is ten minutes so be it–it would still make my life.

Moon, final answer.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

This is Ashok.

reality in bits: economics, technology, and thought

Notes on a Theory...

Thoughts on politics, law, & social science

Nicole Gaddie

Journalist | Golfer | Storyteller | @NicoleGaddie

A kitchen for every pot

Public housing, people and policy

99 is not 100

"It's not about trash, not about waste. It’s about how we’ve chosen to live.”

TechCrunch

Startup and Technology News

SHAM Lifestyle

SHAM Lifestyle Agency.

The Belle Jar

"Let me live, love and say it well in good sentences." - Sylvia Plath

Burly's Baseball Musings

News and Jaundiced Views on the National Pastime

Sad Old Bastard Radio

Broadcasting sad sounds for sad old bastards and reviewing live music around the Bay Area

dvdsn dvdsn

work, thoughts, translations

Collectively Speaking

A Blog of The Women's Collective

Another World Is Happening

and I want to learn about it

FiveThirtyEight

Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories about politics, sports, science, economics and culture.

dc young entrepreneurs

You're an entrepreneur. We're your support team.

Grantland

Sports and pop culture from our rotating cast of writers

%d bloggers like this: