Finished reading Die with Zero yesterday. I thought it was okay, albeit kind of superficial in its approach. On the upside, it got me thinking about what sort of "experiences" my money might buy. That's not a new line of thought, but I appreciate the spur to think more about it.
I'll mention some of what didn't resonate for me.
1. His emphasis is almost entirely on physical activities. He pays hardly any attention to the fact that a lot of activities that bring people enjoyment and meaning are not physical at all -- they are mental or spiritual. Aside from a couple mentions of doing nice things for loved ones, the entire thrust of the book is on physical degeneration and consequent restriction in physical activities. "Hurry up and buy ski lift tickets, before it's too late." I kept waiting for him to talk about non-physical activities, but he either seems unable to grasp that possibility (I got the impression he's an extroverted, externally oriented person) or it just didn't "fit with his narrative," so he left it out. Big omission. Made the book and the analysis feel shallow to me.
2. I don't believe life ends at death, so I don't feel the urgency that he does, to cram everything into the remaining years of life, or else. When he says things like "When you are no longer able to process energy, you will be declared dead, and your adventure will be over," I respond, "Nope." He sounds like an atheist materialist who thinks this physical life is all there is.
3. I never bought into the protestant work ethic or materialistic mindset, so I felt he was speaking to a different audience than me.
4. He reminds me of the research on satisficers vs. maximizers. Satisficers are happier long term than maximizers. He sounds like a maximizer. I agree with the general thrust (use your money wisely), but I'm not persuaded that trying to get everything Just Right, and maximize your "experience points" -- or even aspiring to that -- is a good idea.
5. He goes on and on about deteriorating with age. It's kind of depressing. He makes no allowance for the fact that people adapt and their interests shift as they get older. He makes it sound like, if you can't hit the slopes at 70, oh no, you won't enjoy your life anymore. No, you just adapt and shift to something else.
6. We have no data suggesting that people get unhappier as they get older. If his premise was true (that physical degeneration with age meant loss of enjoyment), we would see that reflected in the data. But we don't.
7. He doesn't even touch on the fact that the enjoyment level of an experience has less to do with the external event you are "buying" and more to do with your internal attitude and perspective. I can have a more enjoyable experience feeding a squirrel than many people would have on an expensive cruise. Part of what happens as you get older -- at least if you keep learning -- is that your ability to derive enjoyment/satisfaction from experiences increases.
8. He says that the more money you spend on something, the more enjoyment you get out of it. Nah. Some of my best experiences have been on the cheap (e.g., traveling cross-country with some friends, backpacking or camping), and the cheapness has been part of the enjoyment. Yes, spending more money buys you more luxury and convenience, but it doesn't necessarily buy you more enjoyment.
9. In general, the book makes it sound as if the whole game of life is about external stimuli and events. I touched on this in #1, but it's as if the inner life does not exist for him (except as memories of external events).
10. Some of my best years have not been particularly "enjoyable." They have been very hard. Life is not all about enjoyment and pleasure. A full life, imo, is about more than just that.
11. What about spiritual development? What about personal or psychological development? What about learning to transmute "negative" experience into positive? What about becoming a better or wiser person? He doesn't mention any of this. Just go out and spend money on travel, cruises, skiing, big birthday bashes, whatever. It struck me as narrow-minded and unimaginative.
12. He repeats himself a lot.
I have other gripes, but I guess that's enough (probably more than enough, heh). I know I sound cranky, but I'm not. I expected much of this going in, based on descriptions of the book and knowledge about the author, so it wasn't a surprise or a disappointment. Despite my criticisms, I'm glad I read it. It stimulated my thinking on the subject.
