9 ms·

With much sensitivity to the physical and emotional turmoil the author must be experiencing right now, I disagree with his advice: > Stop just assuming you hav

With much sensitivity to the physical and emotional turmoil the author must be experiencing right now, I disagree with his advice: > Stop just assuming you have a full lifetime to do whatever it is you dream of doing. Rare and catastrophic events like this that can severely shorten your life are ones you should not plan for. If they occur, that's very unfortunate, and maybe you'll still have a contingency plan that can rearrange your plans to fit the remainder of your life, but he was still right to have arranged his life from the start to maximize his expected (in the statistical sense) impact: > Before this diagnosis I’d been thinking of my 1st 35 years — aside from being a ton of fun and travel — as preparation. I felt like I was building a platform (savings, networks, skills, experience) that I could then use in my second act to make a real contribution, to “make my mark” "Most of the time", he would have been right to use the early part of his life to make long-term investments in his development. It's just that this time it turned out to be the wrong choice.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Your odds of being the 0.00001% are very low, but someone has to be it. He's just saying recognize that. Recognize that all your hopes, dreams, fears, assumptions, etc. can literally be gone in an instant and live accordingly. I know it sounds ridiculously cliched, and of course you never think it will happen to you, but let me assure you that life really can be taken from you at any time, so live it with that reality in mind.
- setr 9y ago
  Right; the problem being with a rate that low is that there really isn't much to do about it, unless you pretend its much more likely than it actually is. Living accordingly, given all other potential for error in your life that actually is likely to occur, is really to change nothing at all.
- copperx 9y ago
  About 1 in 3 persons develop cancer in their lives. I don't know where you get the 0.000001 from.
  - mathgeek 9y ago
    Pick a different small number then. The point really isn't the specific number, but rather that someone ends up being "that one person who lost the genetic lottery" or "chose their lifestyle poorly" or "happened to live next to the toxic fountain factory" or however you prefer to phrase it when someone gets a terminal disease at 35 or younger.
- Shaanie 9y ago
  That way of thinking is short-sighted and (in my opinion) stupid, though. If you plan around dying at any moment, then you'll never reap the rewards of planning for the future. Unless you mean "enjoy your life while it lasts" which is really cliché and pretty pointless advice.
pg_is_a_butt 9y ago
awww... little sick boy thinks he gets to be a preacher now, to warn us all about mortality. you're all idiots.
darkxanthos 9y ago
In this case, living for "expected value" only makes sense if you live enough times to exploit the central limit theorem. If you review actuarial tables, you can see that at 35 (and male) you have 0.93% chance of not living to see your 40s. That is small... but it isn't vanishingly small. (source: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html)
- airy1 9y ago
  as far as i know people in this stage of life die mostly due to an accident (car crash, etc) than from a critical disease. If one doesn't have any permanent condition, he won't be charged extra for life insurance.
adamredwoods 9y ago
Life is random, from birth to death. We probably should not live it with fear or hard expectations. I remember reading on Twitter about an entrepreneur that was killed instantly from an avalanche on Mt Everest. Who could predict? Just do the best you can, try to be kind, and use sunscreen.
- billforsternz 9y ago
  I agree with your conclusion, but really you should not be doing adventure tourism (edit: Maybe I'm assuming too much) on Mt Everest unless you realise that you are dramatically elevating your chances of sudden death.
- wheels 9y ago
  Not to be callous, but dying climbing Mt. Everest isn't random. Climbing Mt. Everest has a lower survival rate than stage 1 cancer. Chance of death is about 10%.
  - LewisJEllis 9y ago
    Nonsense, please check your sources; you're off by nearly an order of magnitude. Death rate throughout Everest's entire history is around 4%, and around 2% from 2000 to present. That's also skewed a bit by 2014 and 2015 being particularly bad years; it was 1.4% between 2000 and 2010, and 2016 and 2017 are both around 1%. If you have a 10% figure in your head, you must be thinking of K2 or another more dangerous mountain.
  - mathgeek 9y ago
    Wikipedia shows that from 2011-16, there were roughly 2000 folks who tried to climb to the summit of Everest, and about 70 deaths on the mountain (including those not trying to reach the summit).
princeb 9y ago
yep. you can believe that you have a chance to never live to a ripe old age and then never make long-term plans. this means: not saving up for a family, not having a family in the first place, not committing to a profession, business, or a path of learning that requires years or decades of consistent effort, or simply not having much of a life at all. it would be like a company that never makes decisions that affects them in the long term (of more than a year) because the chance of running out of working capital exists.
wahern 9y ago
Rare and catastrophic events like this that can severely shorten your life are ones you should not plan for. If you have dependents one should at least think about purchasing term life insurance. It's relatively cheap because the risk is small. OTOH, because medical science has become so good at extending life, it's an even better idea to purchase disability insurance. That's something I still keep meaning to do. But it is more expensive as a not insignificant number of people become disabled, at least temporarily, in middle age. For example, disability insurance will pay for the time you're getting chemotherapy and unable to draw your normal salary. It's basically an income guarantee. Note that employer-sponsored policies--especially term life--are crap. They're structured as a tax dodge for the employer, the cap is usually much too low, and in any event the policy is only good for as long as you're with that employer. Basically, it's a bad deal. The sooner you buy a private policy the cheaper it will be; don't wait even if you already have an employer-sponsored policy! Apropos HN, here's a good startup making it easier to buy these policies: https://www.policygenius.com/ https://www.policygenius.com/ I used them for my term life insurance policy and was very happy with their service. I plan on using their service again for disability insurance once I have the budget. AFAIU term life insurance is much like auto insurance--the policies break even but the issuers profit from the float. I used to think these things were bad deals. Some are, like, arguably, State Farm, which charges a huge premium because they invest so heavily in advertisement and an army of insurance agents. Or those issuers that specialize in selling policies to the elderly. But most traditional issuers quote fair prices and the industry seems generally very reputable.
- Arubis 9y ago
  > Note that employer-sponsored policies--especially term life--are crap. They're structured as a tax dodge for the employer, the cap is usually much too low, and in any event the policy is only good for as long as you're with that employer. Basically, it's a bad deal. The sooner you buy a private policy the cheaper it will be; don't wait even if you already have an employer-sponsored policy! I had never considered this, and figured having my employer-sponsored GVUL plan was the responsible choice. Thank you for challenging that assumption! I'll run the numbers for my own situation.
  - 9y ago
unityByFreedom 9y ago
Dude's just saying live your life to the fullest. Love your family and friends, don't sweat the small stuff

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Your odds of being the 0.00001% are very low, but someone has to be it. He's just saying recognize that. Recognize that all your hopes, dreams, fears, assumptions, etc. can literally be gone in an instant and live accordingly. I know it sounds ridiculously cliched, and of course you never think it will happen to you, but let me assure you that life really can be taken from you at any time, so live it with that reality in mind.

setr 9y ago
Right; the problem being with a rate that low is that there really isn't much to do about it, unless you pretend its much more likely than it actually is. Living accordingly, given all other potential for error in your life that actually is likely to occur, is really to change nothing at all.
copperx 9y ago
About 1 in 3 persons develop cancer in their lives. I don't know where you get the 0.000001 from.
- mathgeek 9y ago
  Pick a different small number then. The point really isn't the specific number, but rather that someone ends up being "that one person who lost the genetic lottery" or "chose their lifestyle poorly" or "happened to live next to the toxic fountain factory" or however you prefer to phrase it when someone gets a terminal disease at 35 or younger.
Shaanie 9y ago
That way of thinking is short-sighted and (in my opinion) stupid, though. If you plan around dying at any moment, then you'll never reap the rewards of planning for the future. Unless you mean "enjoy your life while it lasts" which is really cliché and pretty pointless advice.

pg_is_a_butt 9y ago

awww... little sick boy thinks he gets to be a preacher now, to warn us all about mortality. you're all idiots.

darkxanthos 9y ago

In this case, living for "expected value" only makes sense if you live enough times to exploit the central limit theorem. If you review actuarial tables, you can see that at 35 (and male) you have 0.93% chance of not living to see your 40s. That is small... but it isn't vanishingly small. (source: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html)

airy1 9y ago
as far as i know people in this stage of life die mostly due to an accident (car crash, etc) than from a critical disease. If one doesn't have any permanent condition, he won't be charged extra for life insurance.

adamredwoods 9y ago

Life is random, from birth to death. We probably should not live it with fear or hard expectations. I remember reading on Twitter about an entrepreneur that was killed instantly from an avalanche on Mt Everest. Who could predict? Just do the best you can, try to be kind, and use sunscreen.

billforsternz 9y ago
I agree with your conclusion, but really you should not be doing adventure tourism (edit: Maybe I'm assuming too much) on Mt Everest unless you realise that you are dramatically elevating your chances of sudden death.
wheels 9y ago
Not to be callous, but dying climbing Mt. Everest isn't random. Climbing Mt. Everest has a lower survival rate than stage 1 cancer. Chance of death is about 10%.
- LewisJEllis 9y ago
  Nonsense, please check your sources; you're off by nearly an order of magnitude. Death rate throughout Everest's entire history is around 4%, and around 2% from 2000 to present. That's also skewed a bit by 2014 and 2015 being particularly bad years; it was 1.4% between 2000 and 2010, and 2016 and 2017 are both around 1%. If you have a 10% figure in your head, you must be thinking of K2 or another more dangerous mountain.
- mathgeek 9y ago
  Wikipedia shows that from 2011-16, there were roughly 2000 folks who tried to climb to the summit of Everest, and about 70 deaths on the mountain (including those not trying to reach the summit).

princeb 9y ago

yep. you can believe that you have a chance to never live to a ripe old age and then never make long-term plans. this means: not saving up for a family, not having a family in the first place, not committing to a profession, business, or a path of learning that requires years or decades of consistent effort, or simply not having much of a life at all. it would be like a company that never makes decisions that affects them in the long term (of more than a year) because the chance of running out of working capital exists.

wahern 9y ago

Rare and catastrophic events like this that can severely shorten your life are ones you should not plan for. If you have dependents one should at least think about purchasing term life insurance. It's relatively cheap because the risk is small. OTOH, because medical science has become so good at extending life, it's an even better idea to purchase disability insurance. That's something I still keep meaning to do. But it is more expensive as a not insignificant number of people become disabled, at least temporarily, in middle age. For example, disability insurance will pay for the time you're getting chemotherapy and unable to draw your normal salary. It's basically an income guarantee. Note that employer-sponsored policies--especially term life--are crap. They're structured as a tax dodge for the employer, the cap is usually much too low, and in any event the policy is only good for as long as you're with that employer. Basically, it's a bad deal. The sooner you buy a private policy the cheaper it will be; don't wait even if you already have an employer-sponsored policy! Apropos HN, here's a good startup making it easier to buy these policies: https://www.policygenius.com/ https://www.policygenius.com/ I used them for my term life insurance policy and was very happy with their service. I plan on using their service again for disability insurance once I have the budget. AFAIU term life insurance is much like auto insurance--the policies break even but the issuers profit from the float. I used to think these things were bad deals. Some are, like, arguably, State Farm, which charges a huge premium because they invest so heavily in advertisement and an army of insurance agents. Or those issuers that specialize in selling policies to the elderly. But most traditional issuers quote fair prices and the industry seems generally very reputable.

Arubis 9y ago
> Note that employer-sponsored policies--especially term life--are crap. They're structured as a tax dodge for the employer, the cap is usually much too low, and in any event the policy is only good for as long as you're with that employer. Basically, it's a bad deal. The sooner you buy a private policy the cheaper it will be; don't wait even if you already have an employer-sponsored policy! I had never considered this, and figured having my employer-sponsored GVUL plan was the responsible choice. Thank you for challenging that assumption! I'll run the numbers for my own situation.
- 9y ago

unityByFreedom 9y ago

Dude's just saying live your life to the fullest. Love your family and friends, don't sweat the small stuff