From: Spike Jones (spike66@ibm.net)
Date: Sun Feb 27 2000 - 19:53:20 MST
> spike wrote:> My apologies in advance to those who believe all that
> stuff really
> > is only 5 to 10 yrs off.
>
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote: Coward, won't name names will ya....
{8^D Coward? Perhaps, but I in fact do not try to memorize
who believes what, and I dont archive the extropian traffic. I
*think* Eliezer is one of those who believes the world will be
really radically different in 5 yrs than it is now, but not sure. This
worries me because he is one of those who might be able to
actually *cause* a radical difference. {8-]
Furthermore, I am sensitized to people's wish for privacy, and
I dont recall who those folks are, so common courtesy dictates
not naming names when in doubt. {8-] I dont suspect Eliezer
minds being associated with the 5-10 yrs crowd.
> > Im pretty sure it is longer than that, 20-30 for instance, before
> > we have the tech to theoretically extend life out to 150 yrs.
>
> It only matters to someone 120+ now, whether or not we will have the
> technology to hit 150 in 20-30 years.
No no, Robert, we need a new way to think about this. Weve painted
ourselves into a corner. Consider this: you and I are about 40, so
the probability that one of us will die this year is, say 0.02, but next
year it will be slightly higher, say 0.021, and higher the next year
and so on. If we wanted to look up life insurance rates, we could
actually calc these numbers.
Now, if that leukemia cure that was announced in November turns
out to be a robust cure for all leukemia, then *everyone's* risk of
death goes down.
My question now can be stated thus: at what time in the future do
we hit the point where our chance of perishing next year is the
same as it was this year? Does it not follow then that a few years
after that point, then our chance of croaking next year is actually
lower than it was this year? Does not this point come sooner
for the currently young than for the currently old? [like us. {8^D]
Nowthen, we can reach this point and still not be immortal,
because even if our risk of death is going down with time,
it is nonzero, so we are still accumulating risk.
I know not this topic, but I am confident this has already been
thought out and thoroughly documented. But where? spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:04 MST