Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

alicey comments on Facing the Intelligence Explosion discussion page - Less Wrong

20 Post author: lukeprog 26 November 2011 08:05AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (133)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: alicey 11 January 2014 04:03:03AM *  2 points [-]

in http://intelligenceexplosion.com/2012/engineering-utopia/ you say "There was once a time when the average human couldn’t expect to live much past age thirty."

this is false, right?

(edit note: life expectancy matches "what the average human can expect to live to" now somewhat, but if you have a double hump of death at infancy/childhood and then old age, you can have a life expectancy of 30 but a life expectancy of 15 year olds of 60, in which case the average human can expect to live to 1 or 60 (this is very different from "can't expect to live to >30") . or just "can expect to live to 60" if you too don't count infants as really human)

Comment author: CarlShulman 11 January 2014 10:06:28AM 0 points [-]

Life expectancy used to be very low, but it was driven by child and infant mortality more than later pestilence and the like.

Comment author: alicey 11 January 2014 11:52:12AM 0 points [-]

have edited original comment to address this.

(thought it was obvious)

Comment author: [deleted] 11 January 2014 07:19:20AM *  0 points [-]

No (it was still in the 30's in some parts of the world as recently as the 20th century).

Comment author: alicey 11 January 2014 11:41:45AM *  0 points [-]

have edited original comment . does it address this?

Comment author: [deleted] 11 January 2014 05:35:29PM 0 points [-]

No. Still throughout most history it was the exception to live much longer than child bearing age (14-30).