Hacker News Reader

Comment by dexwiz | Hacker News Reader

I remember reading an analysis that if people only died by accident then the average life span would between 900 and 2000 years. That assumes no more conservative living than today. Surely things like cars and guns would be much less prevalent.

View on HN

> Surely things like cars and guns would be much less prevalent.

Why “surely”? I don’t see why people would try to stop killing each other if everyone were immortal. There would still be fighting for resources, power, land…

You’d still end up with any slightly dangerous activity being banned or discouraged. No bicycling, no skiing, no martial arts, etc. The risk would be considered not worth it.

And that’s not mentioning inherently dangerous things like exploring the cosmos.

It would be a very small, sad, scared little world, in my opinion.

If people only died by accident, it implies the absence of murder, which implies either a state of enlightenment or non-humanness. I doubt we can meaningfully conjecture on such a world.

Or perhaps, lives being so long, there wouldn’t be any perceived difference between dying at a hundred and a thousand years old.

Today, a twenty-something dying in a car crash after drinking alcohol is as stupid and preventable as deaths gets. And we known that people drive more safely later in their lives. And yet, we let twenty-somethings get a driving license and drive a car around.

I don’t think you could discount the Foucault power dynamics either. The people running society would all be hundreds of years old, so it would have an effect on culture.

I don’t agree that preventing twenty somethings from dying in drunk crashes is easy or preventable at all. You’d need to redo the entire transportation and city planning infrastructure of almost the entire United States to do that.

It’s not a US specific problem.

Young drunks also ride electric mopeds in European capitals, usually renting them through apps. Sometimes without even a driving license.

So while public transports might be a part of the issue, I doubt they are the root cause.

But that wasn’t my point. My point was that, although it is stupidly dangerous, since they statistically have significantly more accidents than older drivers, young people are still allowed to get a driving license and drive.

Even though they are those that stand the most to lose in terms of life expectancy.

What makes you think everyone would adopt that attitude? Plenty of people today risk losing decades of their lives doing those things in addition to more risky ones like rock climbing. Why would centuries instead of decades change that?

Living for centuries or longer would be an entirely different thing. If the baseline assumption is that you’re going to live forever unless you have a dumb accident, I think society will ultimately orient itself around avoiding that possibility.

Of course you still might be a counter cultural movement against it, but if the powers running society are all centuries-old people, I don’t think that counter culture will have much institutional support.

> You’d still end up with any slightly dangerous activity being banned or discouraged. No bicycling, no skiing, no martial arts, etc.

I'm unconvinced. Humans' maximum age has barely budged over the millenia. What drove our increasing concern for safety was external to that. We also don't see evidence of increased risk taking as one's risk-adjusted remaining years decline.

If the only way you could die was by physical accident, you don’t think people would do less physically risky things?

Historical examples are not really relevant, as getting older is not equivalent to getting older then dying and living forever.

> If the only way you could die was by physical accident, you don’t think people would do less physically risky things?

On average, sure. But look at how the wealthy spend their time today. Rationally, they should be more conservative. In reality, the infinity of experience calls out.

Similarly, having biological immortality doesn't mean your time preference goes to zero [1]. And if that number is positive then value of a statistical life is finite [2]. We're thus shifting our place on a scale, not throwing the scale out. Hence why the examples are relevant: we've shifted on this scale before.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

[2] https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-v...

I still don’t think this is a relevant example at all. Rich people are still going to die. If they’re careful, which they tend to be relative to the population, they live a decade or two longer than average people.

That isn’t the same thing as immortality.

> That isn’t the same thing as immortality

Biological immortality still means you'll die, somewhow, somewhere. Or at least, I believe enough will believe that to continue to have fun. There will be folks who lock themselves in a room to keep the world away, but we have those today as well.

My feeling is that longevity will have an s-curve effect. Every disease and malady we solve today only extends life until some other problem kills you. However, the further we push things, the more problems we are capable of resolving, the fewer things that will pop up and kill you - until, probably surprisingly, people are living significantly longer lifespans than ever before.

The most generalised effects of aging will probably be the most problematic (muscle loss and the like), but there are plenty of stories of people in their 90s who are plenty spry until they are brought low by a heart attack, stroke, cancer and so on.

Why would dangerous activities be discouraged more then they already are?

Just to make a small note: most martial arts are not in any way dangerous. I think crossfit has more chances to mess someone up than practicing a martial art.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com