From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 02:09:42 MST
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 - 02:08:15 MST