The question itself is flawed, because the question implies that there is no value to doing anything past the age of 50. The argument is basically that because you get little benefit from transitioning at 50 in comparison to transitioning at, let's say, 20, that there is no value in it at all. But, that way of thinking ignores the fact that there ARE benefits to transitioning at 50 compared to not transitioning at all.
I can use this same fallacy in a million ways, and it will still be flawed every single time. For example, why work on your health at age 50 when you could die soon anyway? Why take up a new hobby at age 50, when the best years of your life are already gone? Why engage in a lifelong passion at age 50 that you never pursued, such as painting or writing?
The reason that these questions are all flawed is because they are comparing the benefit to doing something at an old age versus a young age. The thing that is not being considered is doing something at an old age versus NEVER DOING IT AT ALL, which is what the question inevitably leads to when you follow its (non)logic to its conclusion.
In fact, if you follow the non-logic to its ultimate conclusion, everyone should commit suicide at age 50 because it is not worth doing anything past age 50. That's basically what someone is implying when they ask that question. The question is favoring compared doing an activity at a young age versus an old age while completely ignoring the consequences of not doing the activity at all.
