Re:Safe Retirement Spending Using TensorFlow
by slg on Wednesday August 31, 2016 @05:25PM
(#12401608)
Aren't life expectancy numbers at birth inherently flawed because they assume the status quo for 70+ years? I don't think there are any medical breakthroughs around the corner that will dramatically increase the lifespan of someone who is currently 65, but are you willing to bet that won't happen for someone who is born today?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Safe Retirement Spending Using TensorFlow
by semi-extrinsic on Wednesday August 31, 2016 @05:56PM
(#12401792)
Yes, these numbers are back-calculated as you say (anything else would be witchcraft). And as you say, there could suddenly be a breakthrough technology in twenty years that massively increases life expectancy.
But IMO this is very unlikely, because people die of such wildly varying causes (including lifestyle-induced diseases, accidents and even suicide) that it's hard to imagine what this sudden change could be.
More likely we will keep seeing incremental change, disease by disease, steadily increasing average lifetimes.
Biology and biochemistry is so bloody hard compared to any human tech, it's amazing we have come as far as we have today. People talk about curing cancer like going to the moon, just throw money at it, but that analogy is only accurate if you assume starting your space program sometime around 1870.