From: Alex Ramonsky (alex@ramonsky.com)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 07:07:09 MST
...If Lee is correct, we would be a lot more concerned about obesity in
children than in adults. Would you say that is true? Is the US putting
any cash into working on this?
AR
Lee Corbin wrote:
>Robert writes
>
>
>
>>So, *why* the blazes is the ExI list debating IRAQ when
>>it should be debating caloric intake?
>>
>>
>
>Well, perhaps there's nothing wrong with debating both!? ;-)
>
>
>
>>Just what part of the principle of "rational thinking"
>>is not being understood (e.g. saving more people is
>>perhaps better than saving fewer people)?
>>
>>
>
>This resumes a discussion about whether it's people's
>"lives" or people-years we wish to save. Consider deathoids
>A and B, who are not signed up for cryonics, and (for the
>sake of argument) have probability 1 of not remaining
>alive until anti-aging drugs are available. But one
>person is dying at age 70 as a result of obesity and
>this individual---were his obesity related disorders
>correctable---would be dead at age 74 from a heart
>attack. Person B is an 18-year-old who will die from
>an automobile accident or from a war-related injury.
>
>I say that if the effort to save each life is comparable
>(when averaged over millions of people) then the investment
>in deathoid B is preferable. This is because person B has
>a much greater life expectancy.
>
>Moreover, I claim that people intuitively appreciate this
>difference, and that's why there is less excitement about
>obesity that one would think.
>
>Unfortunately, deaths attributable to one age-related
>disease (e.g. heart disease or cancer), change dramatically
>for the worse when some *other* disease is successfully
>combated. This phenomenon is strictly due to "deaths"
>not being calibrated in person-years.
>
>Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 05 2003 - 07:05:14 MST