NancyLebovitz comments on Measuring lethality in reduced expected heartbeats - Less Wrong

5 Post author: chaosmage 03 January 2014 02:14PM

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

Comments (27)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Wes_W 03 January 2014 07:13:14PM 1 point [-]

If smoking a pack only cost you 30 minutes, then you'd have to smoke a pack a day for 48 years to shorten your lifespan by just 1 year, which IIRC is a lower risk than smoking actually poses.

100,000 beats per day is ~70bpm, so 1800 beats is 25 minutes. I've just noticed that I don't actually know how many cigarettes are in a pack - a dozen or so? - so that's around 5 hours. 48 years of smoking would cost you a decade of expected life, which (again, IIRC) is in the right ballpark.

This does mean the conversion rate of wasted time: cigarette disgust is lower than the 80-seconds figure implies. I hope this does not too much undermine the idea's usefulness to you.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 January 2014 08:44:16PM *  1 point [-]

If smoking a pack only cost you 30 minutes, then you'd have to smoke a pack a day for 48 years to shorten your lifespan by just 1 year, which IIRC is a lower risk than smoking actually poses.

The figure I was familiar with, and the one most frequent in the first page of Google results for each cigarette shortens your life by, is 11 minutes.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 03 January 2014 10:36:00PM 0 points [-]

That seems high.

Smoking shortens life by about ten years-- but not so much if you stop by age 40. This may imply that if we get decent anti-aging tech, smoking won't be a serious risk. How hard would the tech be to not be bothered by cigarette smoke?

Let's assume someone who didn't stop smoked for 40 years-- two packs a day. That's 40 x 365 x 40 = 584,000 cigarettes. Divide that into 10 years worth of minutes, and it comes out as .9 minutes, assuming I set up the calculations properly.

Comment author: Yosarian2 04 January 2014 02:46:38PM *  1 point [-]

This may imply that if we get decent anti-aging tech, smoking won't be a serious risk.

Not necessarily; more likely, it just means that damage is cumulative over time. Most people don't start smoking when they're 45, so it's not really a direct comparison.

Also, smoking seems to negatively affect brain health as well, which is problematic since reversing brain degradation might be harder then other types of anti-aging technology.

Comment author: Caspian 05 January 2014 01:07:32AM 0 points [-]

I think there's an error in your calculations.

If someone smoked for 40 years and that reduced their life by 10 years, that 4:1 ratio translates to every 24 hours of being a smoker reducing lifespan by 6 hours (360 minutes). Assuming 40 cigarettes a day, that's 360/40 or 9 minutes per cigarette, pretty close to the 11 given earlier.