# An Evil Guest science errors *The Urth list — 6 messages, 5 voices, 04 Jan 2010* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Gwern Branwen *04 Jan 2010, 16:07* I forgot to include this in my tone email, but another thing that bothered me coming from an engineer is the apparent sloppiness with his scientific assertions. Reis claims that even if humans didn't age, we'd still only get 2 or 300 years because of accidents and murders and self-slaughter. This is a classically conservative argument against being interested in curing aging - you're going to die anyway, and soon - but as far as I can tell, his numbers are just wrong. I have seen statistics to the effect that a 12 year old who stopped aging could expect a median lifespan of >1000 years before disease or something else finally got her. But the mortality rates for young people in general are low enough that 2 or 300 years is ridiculously too little, and we can see this very easily, http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-wasnt-built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/ mentions that 1/3000 or 0.03% of 25 year-olds will die age 25. (Seems reasonable to me.) If we assume a cohort of 10x people, and each year 0.03% of them die, then 1000 years from now, 7.4x will still be alive. 300 years from now, 9.15x will still be alive, and 200 years will see 9.42x. It's a low death rate! Even a little basic figuring would have show 2-300 years to be absurd. And we can't make the excuse that Wolfe was estimating from the mid-40s ages of the protagonists, since the mortality rate cited for 42 year-olds is 1/750 or 0.13%. Plug in the 1/750 to the formula and ask for 300 years from now, and 6.7x are still alive. Heck, 2.6x are still alive 1000 years from now. 7/10ths or 3/10ths odds are not grounds for despair and dismissal. I'm calculating this in a Haskell REPL, GHCi, using this expression for 100 years: 'take 100 $ iterate (\x -> x - (x * 0.0003)) 10' You can see that each step is a year, and each step subtracts 0.03% of the previous year's population-total: [10.0,9.997,9.9940009,9.99100269973,9.98800539892008,9.985008997300405,9.982013494601215,9.979018890552835,9.97602518488567,9.973032377330204,9.970040467617006,9.96704945547672,9.964059340640077,9.961070122837885,9.958081801801034,9.955094377260494,9.952107848947316,9.949122216592631,9.946137479927653,9.943153638683675,9.940170692592071,9.937188641384294,9.934207484791878,9.931227222546442,9.928247854379677,9.925269380023364,9.922291799209358,9.919315111669595,9.916339317136094,9.913364415340952,9.91039040601635,9.907417288894546,9.904445063707877,9.901473730188766,9.898503288069708,9.895533737083287,9.892565076962162,9.889597307439074,9.886630428246841,9.883664439118366,9.88069933978663,9.877735129984694,9.874771809445699,9.871809377902865,9.868847835089495,9.865887180738968,9.862927414584746,9.859968536360372,9.857010545799463,9.854053442635724,9.851097226602933,9.848141897434953,9.845187454865723,9.842233898629264,9.839281228459674,9.836329444091136,9.83337854525791,9.830428531694333,9.827479403134824,9.824531159313883,9.821583799966088,9.8186373248261,9.815691733628652,9.812747026108564,9.809803202000731,9.80686026104013,9.803918202961817,9.80097702750093,9.79803673439268,9.795097323372362,9.79215879417535,9.789221146537097,9.786284380193136,9.783348494879078,9.780413490330615,9.777479366283515,9.77454612247363,9.771613758636889,9.768682274509297,9.765751669826944,9.762821944325996,9.759893097742697,9.756965129813375,9.75403804027443,9.751111828862348,9.74818649531369,9.745262039365095,9.742338460753285,9.739415759215058,9.736493934487294,9.733572986306948,9.730652914411056,9.727733718536733,9.724815398421171,9.721897953801644,9.718981384415503,9.716065690000178,9.713150870293179,9.71023692503209,9.70732385395458] ``` gwern ``` --- ### James Wynn *04 Jan 2010, 16:28 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* Perhaps Chase is using different variables based on empirical data in other non-aging cultures. Perhaps un-aging cultures tend toward more violence and risk. And for self-slaughter, we're talking suicide. We simply cannot know the rates of suicide in cultures where life goes on and on. -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Gwern Branwen" > Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 10:07 AM > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Subject: (urth) An Evil Guest science errors > I forgot to include this in my tone email, but another thing that > bothered me coming from an engineer is the apparent sloppiness with > his scientific assertions. > > Reis claims that even if humans didn't age, we'd still only get 2 or > 300 years because of accidents and murders and self-slaughter. This is > a classically conservative argument against being interested in curing > aging - you're going to die anyway, and soon - but as far as I can > tell, his numbers are just wrong. > > I have seen statistics to the effect that a 12 year old who stopped > aging could expect a median lifespan of >1000 years before disease or > something else finally got her. But the mortality rates for young > people in general are low enough that 2 or 300 years is ridiculously > too little, and we can see this very easily, > > http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-wasnt-built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/ > mentions that 1/3000 or 0.03% of 25 year-olds will die age 25. (Seems > reasonable to me.) > > If we assume a cohort of 10x people, and each year 0.03% of them die, > then 1000 years from now, 7.4x will still be alive. 300 years from > now, 9.15x will still be alive, and 200 years will see 9.42x. It's a > low death rate! > > Even a little basic figuring would have show 2-300 years to be absurd. > And we can't make the excuse that Wolfe was estimating from the > mid-40s ages of the protagonists, since the mortality rate cited for > 42 year-olds is 1/750 or 0.13%. Plug in the 1/750 to the formula and > ask for 300 years from now, and 6.7x are still alive. Heck, 2.6x are > still alive 1000 years from now. 7/10ths or 3/10ths odds are not > grounds for despair and dismissal. > > I'm calculating this in a Haskell REPL, GHCi, using this expression > for 100 years: 'take 100 $ iterate (\x -> x - (x * 0.0003)) 10' > > You can see that each step is a year, and each step subtracts 0.03% of > the previous year's population-total: > [10.0,9.997,9.9940009,9.99100269973,9.98800539892008,9.985008997300405,9.982013494601215,9.979018890552835,9.97602518488567,9.973032377330204,9.970040467617006,9.96704945547672,9.964059340640077,9.961070122837885,9.958081801801034,9.955094377260494,9.952107848947316,9.949122216592631,9.946137479927653,9.943153638683675,9.940170692592071,9.937188641384294,9.934207484791878,9.931227222546442,9.928247854379677,9.925269380023364,9.922291799209358,9.919315111669595,9.916339317136094,9.913364415340952,9.91039040601635,9.907417288894546,9.904445063707877,9.901473730188766,9.898503288069708,9.895533737083287,9.892565076962162,9.889597307439074,9.886630428246841,9.883664439118366,9.88069933978663,9.877735129984694,9.874771809445699,9.871809377902865,9.868847835089495,9.865887180738968,9.862927414584746,9.859968536360372,9.857010545799463,9.854053442635724,9.851097226602933,9.848141897434953,9.845187454865723,9.842233898629264,9.839281228459674,9.836329444091136,9.83337854525791,9.8304 > 28531694333,9.827479403134824,9.824531159313883,9.821583799966088,9.8186373248261,9.815691733628652,9.812747026108564,9.809803202000731,9.80686026104013,9.803918202961817,9.80097702750093,9.79803673439268,9.795097323372362,9.79215879417535,9.789221146537097,9.786284380193136,9.783348494879078,9.780413490330615,9.777479366283515,9.77454612247363,9.771613758636889,9.768682274509297,9.765751669826944,9.762821944325996,9.759893097742697,9.756965129813375,9.75403804027443,9.751111828862348,9.74818649531369,9.745262039365095,9.742338460753285,9.739415759215058,9.736493934487294,9.733572986306948,9.730652914411056,9.727733718536733,9.724815398421171,9.721897953801644,9.718981384415503,9.716065690000178,9.713150870293179,9.71023692503209,9.70732385395458] > > -- > gwern > _______________________________________________ --- ### brunians at brunians.org *04 Jan 2010, 16:43 · in reply to James Wynn* When you are talking about something totally speculative, you can make up whatever result you like, basically, and justify your assumptions however you like. Hey, the Shivapuri Baba took up smoking at the age of 107, and died at the age of 137. . > Perhaps Chase is using different variables based on empirical data in > other > non-aging cultures. Perhaps un-aging cultures tend toward more violence > and > risk. And for self-slaughter, we're talking suicide. We simply cannot know > the rates of suicide in cultures where life goes on and on. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Gwern Branwen" > Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 10:07 AM > To: "The Urth Mailing List" > Subject: (urth) An Evil Guest science errors >> I forgot to include this in my tone email, but another thing that >> bothered me coming from an engineer is the apparent sloppiness with >> his scientific assertions. >> >> Reis claims that even if humans didn't age, we'd still only get 2 or >> 300 years because of accidents and murders and self-slaughter. This is >> a classically conservative argument against being interested in curing >> aging - you're going to die anyway, and soon - but as far as I can >> tell, his numbers are just wrong. >> >> I have seen statistics to the effect that a 12 year old who stopped >> aging could expect a median lifespan of >1000 years before disease or >> something else finally got her. But the mortality rates for young >> people in general are low enough that 2 or 300 years is ridiculously >> too little, and we can see this very easily, >> >> http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-wasnt-built-to-last-a-lesson-from-human-mortality-rates/ >> mentions that 1/3000 or 0.03% of 25 year-olds will die age 25. (Seems >> reasonable to me.) >> >> If we assume a cohort of 10x people, and each year 0.03% of them die, >> then 1000 years from now, 7.4x will still be alive. 300 years from >> now, 9.15x will still be alive, and 200 years will see 9.42x. It's a >> low death rate! >> >> Even a little basic figuring would have show 2-300 years to be absurd. >> And we can't make the excuse that Wolfe was estimating from the >> mid-40s ages of the protagonists, since the mortality rate cited for >> 42 year-olds is 1/750 or 0.13%. Plug in the 1/750 to the formula and >> ask for 300 years from now, and 6.7x are still alive. Heck, 2.6x are >> still alive 1000 years from now. 7/10ths or 3/10ths odds are not >> grounds for despair and dismissal. >> >> I'm calculating this in a Haskell REPL, GHCi, using this expression >> for 100 years: 'take 100 $ iterate (\x -> x - (x * 0.0003)) 10' >> >> You can see that each step is a year, and each step subtracts 0.03% of >> the previous year's population-total: >> [10.0,9.997,9.9940009,9.99100269973,9.98800539892008,9.985008997300405,9.982013494601215,9.979018890552835,9.97602518488567,9.973032377330204,9.970040467617006,9.96704945547672,9.964059340640077,9.961070122837885,9.958081801801034,9.955094377260494,9.952107848947316,9.949122216592631,9.946137479927653,9.943153638683675,9.940170692592071,9.937188641384294,9.934207484791878,9.931227222546442,9.928247854379677,9.925269380023364,9.922291799209358,9.919315111669595,9.916339317136094,9.913364415340952,9.91039040601635,9.907417288894546,9.904445063707877,9.901473730188766,9.898503288069708,9.895533737083287,9.892565076962162,9.889597307439074,9.886630428246841,9.883664439118366,9.88069933978663,9.877735129984694,9.874771809445699,9.871809377902865,9.868847835089495,9.865887180738968,9.862927414584746,9.859968536360372,9.857010545799463,9.854053442635724,9.851097226602933,9.848141897434953,9.845187454865723,9.842233898629264,9.839281228459674,9.836329444091136,9.83337854525791,9.83 >> 04 >> 28531694333,9.827479403134824,9.824531159313883,9.821583799966088,9.8186373248261,9.815691733628652,9.812747026108564,9.809803202000731,9.80686026104013,9.803918202961817,9.80097702750093,9.79803673439268,9.795097323372362,9.79215879417535,9.789221146537097,9.786284380193136,9.783348494879078,9.780413490330615,9.777479366283515,9.77454612247363,9.771613758636889,9.768682274509297,9.765751669826944,9.762821944325996,9.759893097742697,9.756965129813375,9.75403804027443,9.751111828862348,9.74818649531369,9.745262039365095,9.742338460753285,9.739415759215058,9.736493934487294,9.733572986306948,9.730652914411056,9.727733718536733,9.724815398421171,9.721897953801644,9.718981384415503,9.716065690000178,9.713150870293179,9.71023692503209,9.70732385395458] >> >> -- >> gwern >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeff Wilson *04 Jan 2010, 17:21 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* > On 1/4/2010 10:07 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > I'm calculating this in a Haskell REPL, GHCi, using this expression > for 100 years: 'take 100 $ iterate (\x -> x - (x * 0.0003)) 10' > > You can see that each step is a year, and each step subtracts 0.03% of > the previous year's population-total: > [10.0,9.997,9.9940009,9.99100269973,9.98800539892008,9.985008997300405,9.982013494601215,9.979018890552835,9.97602518488567,9.973032377330204,9.970040467617006,9.96704945547672,9.964059340640077,9.961070122837885,9.958081801801034,9.955094377260494,9.952107848947316,9.949122216592631,9.946137479927653,9.943153638683675,9.940170692592071,9.937188641384294,9.934207484791878,9.931227222546442,9.928247854379677,9.925269380023364,9.922291799209358,9.919315111669595,9.916339317136094,9.913364415340952,9.91039040601635,9.907417288894546,9.904445063707877,9.901473730188766,9.898503288069708,9.895533737083287,9.892565076962162,9.889597307439074,9.886630428246841,9.883664439118366,9.88069933978663,9.877735129984694,9.874771809445699,9.871809377902865,9.868847835089495,9.865887180738968,9.862927414584746,9.859968536360372,9.857010545799463,9.854053442635724,9.851097226602933,9.848141897434953,9.845187454865723,9.842233898629264,9.839281228459674,9.836329444091136,9.83337854525791,9.8 > 304 > 28531694333,9.827479403134824,9.824531159313883,9.821583799966088,9.8186373248261,9.815691733628652,9.812747026108564,9.809803202000731,9.80686026104013,9.803918202961817,9.80097702750093,9.79803673439268,9.795097323372362,9.79215879417535,9.789221146537097,9.786284380193136,9.783348494879078,9.780413490330615,9.777479366283515,9.77454612247363,9.771613758636889,9.768682274509297,9.765751669826944,9.762821944325996,9.759893097742697,9.756965129813375,9.75403804027443,9.751111828862348,9.74818649531369,9.745262039365095,9.742338460753285,9.739415759215058,9.736493934487294,9.733572986306948,9.730652914411056,9.727733718536733,9.724815398421171,9.721897953801644,9.718981384415503,9.716065690000178,9.713150870293179,9.71023692503209,9.70732385395458] Those more modestly equiped with Excel or Windows' built-in CALC.EXE can check this by treating it as a survival chance of .9997 per year, and raise that value to (for example) 100 years with =0.9997^100 (for Excel) or click View | click Scientific .9997 [x^y] 100 [=] (for CALC.EXE) ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com IEEE Student Chapter Blog at < http://ieeetamut.org > ``` --- ### Gwern Branwen *04 Jan 2010, 21:19 · in reply to James Wynn* > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:28 AM, James Wynn wrote: > Perhaps Chase is using different variables based on empirical data in other > non-aging cultures. Which would be? Woldercon? > Perhaps un-aging cultures tend toward more violence and > risk. The intuitive arguments are for exactly the opposite: if your lifespan is indefinitely long, you jeopardize indefinitely many years with violence or risk, whereas with aging, no matter the risk you take you can lose no more than 120 years of life. A ceiling on losses encourages risk-taking. (Consider recent financial bail-outs...) I am reminded of some old quips: Q- Why does the devil keep his deals? A- Because as an immortal he has an infinite time horizon of other deals he jeopardizes if he betrays any given deal. Therefore the opportunity cost of any betrayal is too high. Q- What does that make politicians then? A- Lower in ethical reliability than the devil. -Oldman > And for self-slaughter, we're talking suicide. We simply cannot know > the rates of suicide in cultures where life goes on and on. If the suicides are caused solely by exogenous factors, then Reis - and certainly Wolfe - cannot know this without aging having been cured in a normal human society, which it has not, so the statement is unjustified. If suicides are caused solely by internal reasons, then Reis's statement about deaths being inevitable within 2-300 years is false since people will live as long as they want to. Any mix of endogenous or exogenous factors simply makes his statement a greater or lesser mixture of false and unjustified. > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:43 AM, wrote: > When you are talking about something totally speculative, you can make up whatever result you like, basically, and justify your assumptions however you like. > > Hey, the Shivapuri Baba took up smoking at the age of 107, and died at the age of 137. Entertainingly, I was recently reading http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/animal-smoking-studies.html and http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/smoking-followup.html arguing that the actual studies suggest that smoking is only harmful to people with bad/vulnerable lungs (for whom it is harmful enough to skew all the other statistics which we know and fear). > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote: > Those more modestly equiped with Excel or Windows' built-in CALC.EXE can > check this by treating it as a survival chance of .9997 per year, and raise > that value to (for example) 100 years with > > =0.9997^100 (for Excel) Quite right. If I had thought harder, I would've realized that was the easier way to do it - but I'm a Haskeller and the iterate pattern is what my mind jumped to. (It does have the slight advantage of showing all the intermediate results, but that's very slight.) ``` gwern ``` --- ### Dave Tallman *05 Jan 2010, 21:47 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* > Gwern Branwen wrote: > The intuitive arguments are for exactly the opposite: if your lifespan > is indefinitely long, you jeopardize indefinitely many years with > violence or risk, whereas with aging, no matter the risk you take you > can lose no more than 120 years of life. A ceiling on losses > encourages risk-taking. (Consider recent financial bail-outs...) For a Wolfe view of a world with unlimited longevity, look at 'The Doctor of Death Island.' Life becomes meaningless, therefore cheap. Love is gone. The war between the sexes is literal. Etc. ---