I've never been a big thrill seeker, but there were things I did which weren't in my best interests.
Interesting the choice of the age 27. My son was born when I was 27.
It was three years later (better late than never) when something clicked inside my head which caused me to back off the throttle, sit up and slow down a bit. (Literally: I was on a bike with the throttle twisted hard against the stop at the time.)
I have had greater pleasures since I turned fifty. I work (if you can call it that) talking to thousands of folks every year, I write and perform my own songs. One song I wrote for my grand daughter and sang it to her when she was two hours old.
Life began for me after 27.

Best
Les

That reminds me of some wisdom my grandfather passed along to me back when I was in my low 20s. I can't quote him word for word but the gist of the message is that as one gets older the nice glowing feeling one has after sex is great, but the feeling one has after a really good bowel movement is even better. At the time I figured he was just pulling my leg. Now I am not so sure he was.

Only an idiot at 19 years old may ask this question. I guess 27 is the most common rock star early demise. I had a pretty good run up to 27 and a lot more fun after. Not sure if a jet set lifestyle would have been that much better? I certainly had no trouble partying on a budget. It doesn't feel like I am doing enough in the present, but looking back, even short term, I get to do and experience a lot more than the average Joe. Definitely 87 + for me.

G

Stupid question. 87 for sure.

87 without hesitation. I lived a ful tilt boogie life until I married at 29 ( well as full tilt boogie as a lower middle class guy could) and now at 63 life is very quiet but very good. Dying at 27 leaves a lot of good stuff out.

87. Live long and prosper (even with an "okay" life)

When I was 18 I would have voted for 87... at 58 I would vote for 27...

Couldn't agree more. I'll take 87 in a heartbeat. At 27 you haven't even begun to experience "life".