The counter-argument is that humans probably have greater capacity to enjoy life (not claiming that’s the ultimate metric, but it is one) before they get old.
But not all people of the same age are really the same amount of ‘old’. It seems likely that you get unhealthy faster, which causes your earlier death. It’d surprise me if it were closer to a symptomless clock that just killed you a bit earlier.
The distinction between sidereal years lived and ‘biological age’ (as well as mental age and such) deserve to be made more often. When people ask “but why would anyone want to live to be 1000 years old?”, the answer might be “to play football!”
Also, having that extra 4 years in the middle could allow you to make more changes to the world sooner, and have an effect on a larger portion of the future light cone.
...also making changes to yourself that you have longer time to benefit from. I think you had this in mind, but ‘changes to the world’ obscures the point a bit.
BTW, this ‘life arbitrage’ was not my main point, I was trying to highlight the biases that would prevent a person from calculating ‘quantity of life’ correctly even if it was +4/-1 vs +4/-4. This is a valuable related point nevertheless.
The counter-argument is that humans probably have greater capacity to enjoy life (not claiming that’s the ultimate metric, but it is one) before they get old.
But not all people of the same age are really the same amount of ‘old’. It seems likely that you get unhealthy faster, which causes your earlier death. It’d surprise me if it were closer to a symptomless clock that just killed you a bit earlier.
The distinction between sidereal years lived and ‘biological age’ (as well as mental age and such) deserve to be made more often. When people ask “but why would anyone want to live to be 1000 years old?”, the answer might be “to play football!”
Also, having that extra 4 years in the middle could allow you to make more changes to the world sooner, and have an effect on a larger portion of the future light cone.
+1
...also making changes to yourself that you have longer time to benefit from. I think you had this in mind, but ‘changes to the world’ obscures the point a bit.
BTW, this ‘life arbitrage’ was not my main point, I was trying to highlight the biases that would prevent a person from calculating ‘quantity of life’ correctly even if it was +4/-1 vs +4/-4. This is a valuable related point nevertheless.