3 ms·

It depends where in life you gain those two years. Two extra years of being 20 is a lot nicer than two extra years of being 99.

inglor_cz 5y ago
True, but cancer is typically a disease of the old age. I do not remember it exactly, but your chances of developing cancer at 70 are several thousand times higher than at 20.
- adventured 5y ago
  It's not quite that dramatic. Globally [1] it's closer to 100x-200x for an early 20 something vs early 70 something. For the US [2] it's 3.4 per 100k at 20-24 years of age, and 659 per 100k at 70-74 years of age (call it 200x). A large number of people 50-70 die of cancer however. For the 60-64 group, the rate spikes to 331 per 100k. 50 to 70 can be high quality years for a person. In response to the parent comment that mentioned solving cancer only adding a few years, the lives to be saved in the 50-70 group is a very potent counter argument for the economic value and considerable high-quality years that can be added rather than dying at eg 55 or 63. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates-by-age?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates-by-age... [2] https://rivercountrynews.com/an-update-on-cancer-deaths-in-the-united-states-p10169-293.htm https://rivercountrynews.com/an-update-on-cancer-deaths-in-t...
munk-a 5y ago
Not enough people realize this early in their life and spend their youth toiling away for some imagined perfect retirement life - only to reach it and have their pensions disappeared by their company's management firm gambling it away on the stock market, being struck with disease and mobility issues that prevent travel, and losing their loved ones early on into their imagined golden years. Life doesn't last forever; keeping your head down and being a "good worker" doesn't get you shit. You need to actively fight to make sure those years in your youth are worth it - since it's always quite possible that cancer strikes you down in your thirties.

inglor_cz 5y ago

True, but cancer is typically a disease of the old age. I do not remember it exactly, but your chances of developing cancer at 70 are several thousand times higher than at 20.

adventured 5y ago
It's not quite that dramatic. Globally [1] it's closer to 100x-200x for an early 20 something vs early 70 something. For the US [2] it's 3.4 per 100k at 20-24 years of age, and 659 per 100k at 70-74 years of age (call it 200x). A large number of people 50-70 die of cancer however. For the 60-64 group, the rate spikes to 331 per 100k. 50 to 70 can be high quality years for a person. In response to the parent comment that mentioned solving cancer only adding a few years, the lives to be saved in the 50-70 group is a very potent counter argument for the economic value and considerable high-quality years that can be added rather than dying at eg 55 or 63. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates-by-age?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cancer-death-rates-by-age... [2] https://rivercountrynews.com/an-update-on-cancer-deaths-in-the-united-states-p10169-293.htm https://rivercountrynews.com/an-update-on-cancer-deaths-in-t...

munk-a 5y ago

Not enough people realize this early in their life and spend their youth toiling away for some imagined perfect retirement life - only to reach it and have their pensions disappeared by their company's management firm gambling it away on the stock market, being struck with disease and mobility issues that prevent travel, and losing their loved ones early on into their imagined golden years. Life doesn't last forever; keeping your head down and being a "good worker" doesn't get you shit. You need to actively fight to make sure those years in your youth are worth it - since it's always quite possible that cancer strikes you down in your thirties.