I'm inclined to think that this sort of thing is partly driven by something like Stockholm syndrome, because trying to convince yourself having a shorter life is okay is easier than actually extending it.

I don't like this argument, it has a singularly at age zero.

The visualisation sidesteps the problem by starting at year one. You can also add arbitrary constants or other tweaks, but then the idea lose its elegance and you can make it say anything you want.

My recalled experiences approaching age zero closely resemble an asymptote. I can accept that the subjective time between 0.0 seconds (when is time zero, anyway?) and 0.1 seconds was infinitely longer than the last 40 years. Recall of things since I was five only gets moderately difficult, while recall of experiences from one year old or earlier is almost completely inaccessible.

One could say that's because I lacked the experience to interpret and store my sensations at the time, and that those were gradually gained, but to my view that's not a refutation but actually reenforcement of the argument. I'm still learning higher level abstractions every day; the tools to more efficiently store sensation are gathered as new sensations are gathered.

When I was 14, every day at work was radically different than the last. At 44, they're pretty much the same. When I was 14, 8 hours was like forever. These days, if you asked me at 9PM, there might be a 2-3 second delay for me to remember if I worked at all that day.

Counterpoint: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5Cint_1%5Ewdx%2Fx

What does that integral show?

They are making the argument that total perceived time would still increase logarithmically as absolute time increases, even under the model discussed. (And doesn't, say, approach some fixed sum.)

Hence there's still a point to trying to live longer, even if the value of each additional time period decreases.

Anyway, that's if you agree that model! There's a couple of other things I'd consider without even examining it's core assumptions: memory fades over time - time earlier in my life might not contribute as much to my perceived time, as recent time does; what if you spend your early life just getting to the place you want to be (resources, self-development etc)? Extra time in that place could be very valuable!

That even if the perceived duration of a year depends on the number of years lived (1/x), the sum of all perceived durations is unbound.

I think novelty of a moment relative to your recorded memories affects how you perceive the duration of that moment. More novel moments are perceived as lasting longer.

As life goes on novelty of new moments goes down.

You could say this explains or underlies the Janet model.

But one can seek out novelty to slow down time. In the extreme you could “reset”, move away from everything you know, and start from scratch.

I have no evidence for any of this other than my own perception. Does anyone know where to find more discussion on this topic?

That was a really cool visual, thanks for sharing.