At 90, Nobel economist Daniel Kahneman traveled to Switzerland and ended his life, citing a lifelong belief that 'the miseries and indignities of the last years of life are superfluous.' His close friend Al Roth says the decision was considered, unhurried, and consistent with who Kahneman was.
Where this was said
At 2:28 · chapter starts 1:00
The episode opens in earnest with a portrait of Daniel Kahneman: psychologist, Nobel laureate, author of 'Thinking, Fast and Slow,' and one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century. As Kahneman approached his 90th birthday in relatively good health and with a sharp mind, he made a deliberate decision — he traveled to Paris to celebrate with family, then on to Switzerland, where assisted dying has been legal since 1942, and ended his life. In an email to friends, he wrote that he had believed since his teenage years that the suffering of the last years of life was superfluous, and that he was acting on that belief [1] — Stephen Dubner "At 90, Nobel economist Daniel Kahneman traveled to Switzerland and ended his life, citing a lifelong belief that 'the miseries and indignit…" 02:28 . Al Roth — Stanford economist, fellow Nobel laureate, and friend — describes Kahneman's decision as considered and unhurried, made by a man who had witnessed difficult deaths and simply did not want one for himself. But the segment does not romanticize the choice: Dubner raises that at least one mutual friend was devastated, feeling that Kahneman's physical and mental health were still good enough that the loss was premature. Roth acknowledges he might have argued against it had he been closer, but insists he would not want to legislate his views onto anyone else. The conversation immediately establishes the episode's animating tension between personal autonomy and the grief of those left behind.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman traveled to Switzerland and chose to end his life around his 90th birthday, citing a lifelong belief that the final years of life should not be prolonged unnecessarily.
Social media feeds men and women the absolute worst caricatures of each other while stripping away the everyday, imperfect relationships that would calibrate their expectations. Combine that with smaller families and fewer cross-sex friendships, and you get a generation that talks about the opposite sex constantly but almost never to them.
The 'would you rather be alone with a man or a bear' debate went viral not because men are objectively more dangerous than ever, but because an entire fear industrial complex of influencers and safety products had already primed women to feel that way. Once the algorithm identifies you as worried about personal safety, the content and the scrunchie drink-covers never stop.
Women feel less safe not because danger has increased, but because trust in institutions — police, churches, schools — that used to enforce safety norms has collapsed. Young women are far less likely than older women to believe those institutions will handle sexual assault responsibly, leaving them with only individual self-protection as a fallback.
Even self-identified feminist women consistently told Daniel Cox in interviews and surveys that they want men to open doors, pay for dates, and show demonstrable care. The internet noise around 'benevolent sexism' drowns out this widespread, quietly held preference.
In focus groups in Philadelphia and Raleigh, every single hand went up when participants were asked if parents discussed financial stability and education. Zero hands went up for marriage or parenthood. Parents are shaping their children's ambitions with total silence on the experiences that matter most.
American families are smaller than ever, with roughly 1 in 5 children now growing up as only children. Without the daily friction of siblings — shared bedrooms, shared bathrooms, resolving disagreements — young people enter adult relationships without the negotiation muscles relationships require.
Online dating optimises for your existing preferences rather than expanding your horizons. People who meet online give bad first dates almost no second chances; people who meet through mutual friends are far more forgiving. The disembodied, checklist-driven nature of apps removes all the social cues that actually reveal character.
A split-sample survey found that men judge male and female cheating identically harshly, and women judge male cheating the same way men do. The outlier: young women are dramatically less likely to call female infidelity morally wrong, suggesting shared-fate thinking and personal experience of being cheated on are reshaping the moral calculus.
The monk mode trend encourages men to withdraw from social life to work on themselves — but this is precisely backwards. The research is clear: close friendships are the single most powerful predictor of whether a man dates, commits, and becomes his best self. Self-improvement without social reintegration is just sophisticated avoidance.
We use essential and analytics cookies to run Vuci. To understand how the site is used: Privacy Policy.
Install Vuci on your phone
Add it to your home screen for a faster, app-like experience.
Install Vuci on your phone
Tap the Share button, then “Add to Home Screen”.
A new version is available
Reload to get the latest Vuci.