You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

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

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).