4 ms·

It's likely that you live in an area with similar mortality risk from air pollution. Is there a reason not to move to an area with lower risk from air pollutio

by AdamN 2y ago

It's likely that you live in an area with similar mortality risk from air pollution. Is there a reason not to move to an area with lower risk from air pollution?

arethuza 2y ago
Yes, I'm being "irrational" by some viewpoint, I know that.
jorvi 2y ago
Loneliness is quite damaging to someone’s health. Why are you irrationally suggesting to him to dump all his social ties and net raise his risk of disease and death? :)
1992spacemovie 2y ago
I get your point, however, no offense intended, this type of questioning is kinda asinine. One risk is immediate (right now), and to a relative extent, an easy choice to mitigate. The other risk is long term (maybe never), and mitigating the risk is much more costly (uprooting family, moving, finding a new residence... with today's prices).
jameshart 2y ago
Air pollution causes ‘excess deaths’ in the sense that people die of air pollution related diseases at some rate instead of dying of something else, generally a short time later. There’s a very different risk assessment between long term choices that have a remote effect on the likely ultimate cause of your inevitable death, versus the probability of premature death through a sudden violent traumatic event.
michaelt 2y ago
> It's likely that you live in an area with similar mortality risk from air pollution. They're not really equivalent, unless you've got a high-risk condition like asthma. Statistically speaking, a 100% chance of losing one year of lifespan (out of the 76 years an American can expect) is a greater mortality risk than a 1% chance of instant, immediate death. In fact, if you're aged 26, a 1% chance instant death has half the mortality risk - and the older you get, the better it looks. However, if you look at humans' revealed preferences, people would much rather lose one year of lifespan than take a 1% chance of losing their entire remaining lifespan. Mortality risk isn't a very good predictor of human preferences, it turns out.
- bcrosby95 2y ago
  Let's look at money. Would you rather have a 1% chance of losing a million dollars today, or a 100% chance of losing $20k when you're 76? Statistically speaking, a small chance of losing everything today is actually worse than a guaranteed chance of losing a smaller amount later.

by AdamN 2y ago

It's likely that you live in an area with similar mortality risk from air pollution. Is there a reason not to move to an area with lower risk from air pollution?

arethuza 2y ago

Yes, I'm being "irrational" by some viewpoint, I know that.

jorvi 2y ago

Loneliness is quite damaging to someone’s health. Why are you irrationally suggesting to him to dump all his social ties and net raise his risk of disease and death? :)

1992spacemovie 2y ago

I get your point, however, no offense intended, this type of questioning is kinda asinine. One risk is immediate (right now), and to a relative extent, an easy choice to mitigate. The other risk is long term (maybe never), and mitigating the risk is much more costly (uprooting family, moving, finding a new residence... with today's prices).

jameshart 2y ago

Air pollution causes ‘excess deaths’ in the sense that people die of air pollution related diseases at some rate instead of dying of something else, generally a short time later. There’s a very different risk assessment between long term choices that have a remote effect on the likely ultimate cause of your inevitable death, versus the probability of premature death through a sudden violent traumatic event.

michaelt 2y ago

> It's likely that you live in an area with similar mortality risk from air pollution. They're not really equivalent, unless you've got a high-risk condition like asthma. Statistically speaking, a 100% chance of losing one year of lifespan (out of the 76 years an American can expect) is a greater mortality risk than a 1% chance of instant, immediate death. In fact, if you're aged 26, a 1% chance instant death has half the mortality risk - and the older you get, the better it looks. However, if you look at humans' revealed preferences, people would much rather lose one year of lifespan than take a 1% chance of losing their entire remaining lifespan. Mortality risk isn't a very good predictor of human preferences, it turns out.

bcrosby95 2y ago
Let's look at money. Would you rather have a 1% chance of losing a million dollars today, or a 100% chance of losing $20k when you're 76? Statistically speaking, a small chance of losing everything today is actually worse than a guaranteed chance of losing a smaller amount later.