4 ms·
I think there's a straightforward counter to that: > From a purely utilitarian perspective, the worst age to die is 20-22, that's easily adjustable: if 95% of
by da39a3ee 5y ago
I think there's a straightforward counter to that:
> From a purely utilitarian perspective, the worst age to die is 20-22,
that's easily adjustable: if 95% of newborns become healthy 20 yr olds, then just multiply the number of newborns by 0.95. The harder part is estimating total number of years lost, but it doesn't sound particularly out of the ordinary for a research problem in statistics/epidemiology.
- Cogito 5y agoThe (terrible) thought experiment that perhaps gets the parent's point across: Which "costs" more, 100k 20-year-olds dying today, or 100k babies dying today? The 20-year-olds have already had a lot of time, money, and opportunity poured into them, while the babies have not.