2013-02-11, 09:30 PM
Thanks for clarifying that.
I'm still going with slow down time though.
First of all, you wouldn't have time slowed down constantly, you would use it sparingly, an hour or two here and there.
Secondly, your life expectancy would probably increase due to the fact that being able to slow down time will cause you to get less bodily harm. You probably would be spared from a sudden death.
Slowing down time would be safer and grant you a more fulfilling, easier life. also less stress, I'm guessing stress would play a large part in life expectancy too.
So even with those rules... speeding up time still is the weaker option in my opinion.
I'm still going with slow down time though.
First of all, you wouldn't have time slowed down constantly, you would use it sparingly, an hour or two here and there.
Secondly, your life expectancy would probably increase due to the fact that being able to slow down time will cause you to get less bodily harm. You probably would be spared from a sudden death.
Slowing down time would be safer and grant you a more fulfilling, easier life. also less stress, I'm guessing stress would play a large part in life expectancy too.
So even with those rules... speeding up time still is the weaker option in my opinion.