I am a rational person, and as such, have a biological view of life. I will still live my time, and in the moment of my death, I will be gone.
Mankind will achieve individual immortality. This means that sooner or later, there will be humans who can be killed in accidents or by intention, but will not die because of having reached a certain age, or because of physiological failure.
Unfortunately, mankind will reach this stage only at a time when I personally will already be dead.
If the technology for immortality would already exist, I would want to live in a society where it were accessible, and I would have a good reason for accumulating wealth, as this technology would be expensive. Apart from that, with an outlook to live for hundreds or thousands of years, it would make good sense to build up some savings.
Alas, even though some hormonal agents like tongkat ali have been shown to extend life span and quality of life, I wouldn't bet a single euro on me being able to benefit from the life extension technologies of the future.
I therefore have to decide what to do with my life, based on completely different considerations: the assumption that I will soon be dead.
With this perspective, I cannot see much meaning in anything else but the moments of optimal sexual satisfaction. Everything else in this world really isn't worth living for.
However, viewed rationally, the Western rational world is not the best possible environment in which a rational man could find optimal sexual satisfaction. This is the case because in a rational environment, I, as a rational man, will not have as much of a competitive edge as I will enjoy in an irrational world.
For optimal sexual satisfaction, it is not sufficient that the female grants me access to and use of her body. For optimal sexual satisfaction I require that love be involved... a high degree of mental attachment. It is this emotion which is easier to engineer in my female partner in an irrational world rather than a rational one.
Western society is too rational, and too rich, to provide a man of declining sexual market value with the opportunities he longs for.
In a rational, and democratic, society as the standard Western European one, the value of a partner in a sexual relationship heavily depends on his age, or at least the age he looks, and there is very little he can do about this. And yes, this discrimination, so-called ageism, is very much based on rationalism, the same rationalism that is the basis of my own thinking.
This discrimination is also based on general, democratic wealth. In a poor society, the age of a potential sexual male partner is not the main aspect on which it depends whether a young woman is willing to attach herself mentally to him (genuine love). The poorer a society, the more will the attachment potential of a young women depend on factors of a man's wealth.
If he is filthy rich, and she comes from a filthy environment, there is a lot he can offer her. And she can fall in love with him just for the prospects of a future he can provide her with, even if he is old enough to be her grandfather.
Yes, for metaphysical and practical reasons, poor societies, especially when they are also highly irrational (in as much as they are religious), are a much better stage for Western men of a declining sexual market value than are Western societies. Specifically, in poor societies, the value of a man as sexual partner does not depend on his age.
Therefore, men who are getting older and cannot substantially improve their sexual market value by engineering enough apparent youth and sexual attractiveness via cosmetic surgery, have good reason to prefer a world that is an irrational place, one where metaphysical and mystical qualities are attached to people.
Even though such men are rational, I can see advantages for them in societies with strong non-abstract religious beliefs.
The emphasis here is on non-abstract. I have the least sympathy for modern Protestant Christianity because both are so rational that their mystical content has largely diminished. Modern Protestant Christianity really no longer needs God, just an abstract idea of a god, which is but an incorporation of rational opinions on ethical matters.
Rational men can have a great time among people whose religious beliefs still include a strong animistic element. People in such societies live in a different mental universe. Their psychological attachment processes, or should I say: the psychological attachment processes of their young women depend on so many irrational factors (like horoscopes and other hocus-pocus) that the rational factor of a man's apparent age becomes a negligible parameter.
And if the irrational society is a poor one at the same time (which is likely), the only rational consideration that may creep in is of an economic nature.
But clearly being wealthier than the average man in poor societies, economic rationalism is something rich Western men in poor countries can live with.
For the above reasons, men who are descendents of modern Western societies, and men who themselves are totally rational, have good reason to live in irrational Third World countries.