Iām not sure Iād put it only on X-risk people. My understanding is that disease burden and DALYs are calculated using as a reference the highest life expectancy of any country by gender, which was previously Japanese women (now South Korean women?), and somewhere between 80 and 90 years. This means that deaths after this reference life expectancy simply donāt count towards disease burden at all. Iād like to hypothesize that this and some of the downvotes may be due to what I suspect is a common intuition (perhaps not common in EA; I donāt know): everyone ought to have an overall good life with a decent lifespan, i.e. āfair inningsā.
This āfair inningsā might be part of why EAs are generally more concerned with global health and poverty than anti-aging. Maybe the stronger evidence for specific poverty/āhealth interventions explains this better, though.
Iām not sure Iād put it only on X-risk people. My understanding is that disease burden and DALYs are calculated using as a reference the highest life expectancy of any country by gender, which was previously Japanese women (now South Korean women?), and somewhere between 80 and 90 years. This means that deaths after this reference life expectancy simply donāt count towards disease burden at all. Iād like to hypothesize that this and some of the downvotes may be due to what I suspect is a common intuition (perhaps not common in EA; I donāt know): everyone ought to have an overall good life with a decent lifespan, i.e. āfair inningsā.
This āfair inningsā might be part of why EAs are generally more concerned with global health and poverty than anti-aging. Maybe the stronger evidence for specific poverty/āhealth interventions explains this better, though.
Mostly guesses on my part, of course.