An Evil Guest science errors

James Wynn · 04 Jan 2010, 16:28 · from 2010-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:28:19 -0600
Subject: (urth) An Evil Guest science errors
In-Reply-To: <cbf55b101001040807k746b10c5r263738f07e799eee at mail.gmail.com>
References: <cbf55b101001040807k746b10c5r263738f07e799eee at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2852B1452CFA4CA89DD6597AF4E60298@eMachinePC>

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" <gwern0 at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 10:07 AM
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
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
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net