I calculated those estimates with a LOTUS (population weighted average) approach: multiplying the population’s probability of dying at each age by that age itself and taking the sum of those products from ages 0 to infinity. In practice, I took the sum of the products from ages 0 to 1 million because the probability of living past 1 million was so low in these models that there was no contribution to the sum that was more than R’s round-to-zero threshold.
And though none of these models account for it, it does seem like the risk of dying from homicide and suicide ought to decrease with age as society presumably finds life more valuable.
For reference, the median age of death for these are as follows:
Males currently: 80
Females currently: 84
Males in the exponential model: 51
Females in the exponential model: 55
Males in the cure-aging-only model: 372
Females in the cure-aging-only model: 827
Males in the cure-aging-plus-disease model: 541
Females in the cure-aging-plus-disease model: 1688
Males in the cure-aging-plus-disease-and-accidents model: 1428
Females in the cure-aging-plus-disease-and-accidents model: 6144
Males in the last scenario: 1471
Females in the last scenario: 6256
As expected, for all the right-skewed models (everything except reality), the median is less than the mean.
Sorry I still think you aren’t taking the selection effects seriously enough. By selection effects I’m mostly thinking that a relatively small fraction of people will be selected out from the population, and then aggregate suicide rates will drop. Put another way, if you haven’t killed yourself in 200 years of good health, would be weird to start now.
There’s at least two lines of reasoning for this:
rational suicide hypothesis. If people kill themselves for rational reasons, that is, because they correctly estimate that the net pleasure vs suffering balance in their future isn’t worth it, you might expect the people who correctly believe this for idiosyncratic reasons (eg their brain chemistry/neural circuits are unusually predisposed to ennui or depression) to self-select out of the population via suicide first, and the people remaining to have more stable preference for life.
irrational suicide. To the extent that people kill themselves for irrational reasons (eg impulsivity, cognitive distortions that limit rational estimations of future well-being), you might also expect those factors to be concentrated in a relatively small fraction of the population, such that after several hundred years of age, the (living) people remaining will on average be less impulsive and more rational about affective judgments.
I would not be surprised if there are similar things going on for homicide. Certainly people’s proclivities to homicide varies with age today.
Thanks for the questions!
Yes, “average” means “mean” throughout.
I calculated those estimates with a LOTUS (population weighted average) approach: multiplying the population’s probability of dying at each age by that age itself and taking the sum of those products from ages 0 to infinity. In practice, I took the sum of the products from ages 0 to 1 million because the probability of living past 1 million was so low in these models that there was no contribution to the sum that was more than R’s round-to-zero threshold.
And though none of these models account for it, it does seem like the risk of dying from homicide and suicide ought to decrease with age as society presumably finds life more valuable.
For reference, the median age of death for these are as follows:
Males currently: 80
Females currently: 84
Males in the exponential model: 51
Females in the exponential model: 55
Males in the cure-aging-only model: 372
Females in the cure-aging-only model: 827
Males in the cure-aging-plus-disease model: 541
Females in the cure-aging-plus-disease model: 1688
Males in the cure-aging-plus-disease-and-accidents model: 1428
Females in the cure-aging-plus-disease-and-accidents model: 6144
Males in the last scenario: 1471
Females in the last scenario: 6256
As expected, for all the right-skewed models (everything except reality), the median is less than the mean.
CW: Frank discussion of suicide
Sorry I still think you aren’t taking the selection effects seriously enough. By selection effects I’m mostly thinking that a relatively small fraction of people will be selected out from the population, and then aggregate suicide rates will drop. Put another way, if you haven’t killed yourself in 200 years of good health, would be weird to start now.
There’s at least two lines of reasoning for this:
rational suicide hypothesis. If people kill themselves for rational reasons, that is, because they correctly estimate that the net pleasure vs suffering balance in their future isn’t worth it, you might expect the people who correctly believe this for idiosyncratic reasons (eg their brain chemistry/neural circuits are unusually predisposed to ennui or depression) to self-select out of the population via suicide first, and the people remaining to have more stable preference for life.
irrational suicide. To the extent that people kill themselves for irrational reasons (eg impulsivity, cognitive distortions that limit rational estimations of future well-being), you might also expect those factors to be concentrated in a relatively small fraction of the population, such that after several hundred years of age, the (living) people remaining will on average be less impulsive and more rational about affective judgments.
I would not be surprised if there are similar things going on for homicide. Certainly people’s proclivities to homicide varies with age today.