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.

The_Jaded_One comments on Tentative Thoughts on the Cost Effectiveness of the SENS Foundation - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Fluttershy 04 January 2015 02:58AM

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

Comments (19)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 04 January 2015 03:04:49PM 3 points [-]

"about ten times the number of people who die each year would live 30 years of healthy life that they wouldn't have lived otherwise."

This is wrong - those people get to live for thousands of years of SENS works. Or possibly even more.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 January 2015 06:52:57PM 0 points [-]

Well, now you're getting into the next stage: preventing accidental and intentional death. Estimates I read a long time ago and would love to see an updated cite if anyone has one said that once "natural" / ageing causes are removed, the average person would still only be expecting to live a few hundred years until something else (probably an automobile) kills them.

Of course once ageing is dealt with we will have bought ourselves some time to deal with protecting our biological bodies from accidental and intentional harm.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 08 January 2015 05:51:59PM *  1 point [-]

It can't be a few hundred because that would imply that the non-natural-causes death rate is about 20-30% of the natural-causes death rate, which isn't true. At least in the developed world.

I think it's more like a few thousand.

And driverless cars are on the way, which would reduce the death rate drastically.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 January 2015 06:03:06PM 1 point [-]

It can't be a few hundred because that would imply that the non-natural-causes death rate is about 20-30% of the natural-causes death rate, which isn't true.

If you have a 0.1% per year chance of dying "non-naturally", the probability of you surviving for 100 years is 0.999^100 = 90% which looks to be order-of-magnitude correct for contemporary Western countries. This implies that your chances to live for 500 years are 0.999^500 = 60%, for a thousand years -- 37%.

Comment author: The_Jaded_One 20 January 2015 08:34:51AM 0 points [-]

if P(life length=x) = p(1-p)^(x-1) with p=0.001, then E(life length) = 1/p = 1000. It's a geometric random variable.

Which is NOT A FEW HUNDRED YEARS