Maybe 15 years ago I wrote a little Monte Carlo simulator to play around with investment strategies, planning for retirement, etc. Probably all the outputs were so inaccurate as to be useless. But the whole exercise was useful.
For example... who knows, I might make it to 90. My Dad just turned 91. He had a spinal injury maybe 50 years ago and while they've fixed him up a couple times since then, the repairs have been far from perfect. He gets by but certainly requires a lot of support. But there are no guarantees. You can take great care of yourself and get nailed anyway, or practice all sorts of abuse and outlast everyone. You can push the odds one way or another but you can't escape them. How much of my activity now should be primarily so I can live a good life in 30 years, and how much so I can live a good life today?
Then... what's living a good life, anyway? That was a nice puzzle, with my simulator. I had a parameterized strategy. I would run a set of parameter values against say 10,000 randomized scenarios. One problem, of course, is that, however I score an individual scenario, the score for the parameter set ought to be, hmmm, the average, the median, the 20th percentile... of those 10,000 runs. But forget those weeds. What's the score?
Life just gets stranger, the longer I puzzle through it!
Being poor and healthy does seem preferable to being rich and sick! That's sure part of how I ended up with a ridiculously expensive bike... that continues to be a very enjoyable way to enhance circulation, the gasses, the fluids, the solids, to keep things moving, alive!