3 ms·
If the only way you could die was by physical accident, you don’t think people would do less physically risky things? Historical examples are not really releva
by keiferski 2y ago
If the only way you could die was by physical accident, you don’t think people would do less physically risky things?
Historical examples are not really relevant, as getting older is not equivalent to getting older then dying and living forever.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> If the only way you could die was by physical accident, you don’t think people would do less physically risky things? On average, sure. But look at how the wealthy spend their time today. Rationally, they should be more conservative. In reality, the infinity of experience calls out. Similarly, having biological immortality doesn't mean your time preference goes to zero [1]. And if that number is positive then value of a statistical life is finite [2]. We're thus shifting our place on a scale, not throwing the scale out. Hence why the examples are relevant: we've shifted on this scale before. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference [2] https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-valuation#means https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-v...
- keiferski 2y agoI still don’t think this is a relevant example at all. Rich people are still going to die. If they’re careful, which they tend to be relative to the population, they live a decade or two longer than average people. That isn’t the same thing as immortality.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> That isn’t the same thing as immortality Biological immortality still means you'll die, somewhow, somewhere. Or at least, I believe enough will believe that to continue to have fun. There will be folks who lock themselves in a room to keep the world away, but we have those today as well.