Do we need to qualify our choice of with a number of variables ?
how's this for a start...
close enough to a trauma center
close enough to a cryonics facility
a legal venue providing for obtainable life extending services and
low ambient radiation (radon, ultraviolet, etc.)
practical commuting distance to sustain an adequate income (if that is
necessary for how one creates wealth)
Location provides efficient means to access new life extending information
anything else ?
This all brings up the question... if you want to survive the longest,
all else being equal, where do you choose to live in the year 2000?
Dana Hedberg wrote:
> > According to my math, this is:
> > 381 / 82.087.361 = 4,6414E-06 = 0,00046%
> > 12.448 / 272.639.608 = 4,56573E-05 = 0,00457%
> > This is roughly ten times the number of murders per population. I
> > for not including this figure. But it should be obvious that there is a
> > difference between the kills/population ratio here and in the US. The
> > logical question now would be why we have this difference.
> > The number of murders in the US is from 1998 because the FBI did not
> > the final report for 1999 on the Internet up to now.
> > Karsten
> I would be curious to see these numbers as a function of population
> density and perhaps controlling for SES. My hypothesis would be that
> areas with a high population density have the highest murder rate. A
> corollary to that would be, highly dense areas with low SES (but
> probably not starvation level) have the highest rate of murder with a
> gun being the weapon of choice most likely irrespective of that areas
> gun laws.
> I'm sure there has been some studies done looking at these factors.
> Mike, you have anything handy?
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:59 MDT