3 ms·

I think if I was amortal I'd make sure to live a lifestyle apart from buses, cars, and airplanes. At least until I was getting brain backups, augmented body pa

I think if I was amortal I'd make sure to live a lifestyle apart from buses, cars, and airplanes. At least until I was getting brain backups, augmented body parts to reduce my risk to trauma, etc.

dorkwood 5y ago
Do you currently live in a way that avoids buses, cars, and airplanes? If not, why not?
- ctack 5y ago
  Because time is precious and the time saving risk is worth it.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    This is an interesting outcome of not aging. As time becomes less dire, we can remove it (or decrease it's coefficient) as a variable in choices. Interestingly as we start to do thing more slowly our effective live span shrinks when counted in events rather than seconds. To illustrate the idea, consider if the travel portion of vacationing took 5 years, in a 1000 yr life you'd have at max 200 vacations. Someone who lives to 80 today and takes 2 vacations per year already has most of that number of "events" per life span. In part this is why adding "healthspan" is more important than lifespan.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Mostly, yes. I think it would be even more valuable to do so if I was putting a longer span at risk every time I got in a car or plane.
- taneq 5y ago
  Because the risk from them is far smaller than the opportunity cost of losing precious hours of your very finite lifespan moving in a slower but safer manner.
fallingknife 5y ago
Cars definitely. Busses probably. But airplanes are ludicrously safe. Between 2000 and 2010 there was 1 fatality per 5 billion miles. To put that another way you could fly continuously for 1000 years before you would be expected to die.
mcv 5y ago
There are lots of ways to die away from any sort of traffic, though. Lots of accidents happen at home. It would probably be (even) more important to invest in safety everywhere.
nradov 5y ago
Traveling by bus or scheduled commercial airliner is usually safer than walking. In many years, US airlines have literally zero deaths from crashes.

I think if I was amortal I'd make sure to live a lifestyle apart from buses, cars, and airplanes. At least until I was getting brain backups, augmented body parts to reduce my risk to trauma, etc.

dorkwood 5y ago

Do you currently live in a way that avoids buses, cars, and airplanes? If not, why not?

ctack 5y ago
Because time is precious and the time saving risk is worth it.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  This is an interesting outcome of not aging. As time becomes less dire, we can remove it (or decrease it's coefficient) as a variable in choices. Interestingly as we start to do thing more slowly our effective live span shrinks when counted in events rather than seconds. To illustrate the idea, consider if the travel portion of vacationing took 5 years, in a 1000 yr life you'd have at max 200 vacations. Someone who lives to 80 today and takes 2 vacations per year already has most of that number of "events" per life span. In part this is why adding "healthspan" is more important than lifespan.
ALittleLight 5y ago
Mostly, yes. I think it would be even more valuable to do so if I was putting a longer span at risk every time I got in a car or plane.
taneq 5y ago
Because the risk from them is far smaller than the opportunity cost of losing precious hours of your very finite lifespan moving in a slower but safer manner.

fallingknife 5y ago

Cars definitely. Busses probably. But airplanes are ludicrously safe. Between 2000 and 2010 there was 1 fatality per 5 billion miles. To put that another way you could fly continuously for 1000 years before you would be expected to die.

mcv 5y ago

There are lots of ways to die away from any sort of traffic, though. Lots of accidents happen at home. It would probably be (even) more important to invest in safety everywhere.

nradov 5y ago

Traveling by bus or scheduled commercial airliner is usually safer than walking. In many years, US airlines have literally zero deaths from crashes.