I’m not sure if I just thought this up sitting on the tiles in my shower room or if I dreamt it, but still.
Edit: I’m being cynical and I hate our blind faith in and reliance on LLMs.
I’m not sure if I just thought this up sitting on the tiles in my shower room or if I dreamt it, but still.
Edit: I’m being cynical and I hate our blind faith in and reliance on LLMs.
Estimated Time to Death (ETD) feels like a near future stat used to justify killing terminal patients.
And in a few decades we can start using Estimated Societal Contributions to determine how much a person’s entire life might be worth and at what point it becomes financially irresponsible to continue providing any sort of support.
I think we started that a few decades ago with credit score?
Like we don’t directly kill anyone I suppose, but definitely indirectly increase the odds when they are less helpful monetarily.
Just for example with the gen Z suicide epidemic, by definition people are killing themselves not being killed. But to a company this is financially beneficial, cause a left-wing bias has on average resulted in more restrictive laws and a lower profit margin. It becomes an important business strategy to ensure they remain poor and anxious (and of course this causes some to be suicidal). Vice versa for boomers of course, elder care has never been better funded across human history.
Or another example, credit score companies would be “throwing money away” if they weren’t also doing this for like union-oriented families, ie ensuring those who have statistically unionised (or follow any trends that might be too union-y), they’re marked less valuable.
So they can kill people by letting them starve/OD/get in a car accident, or just shorten their lifespan with cheap housing, all without ever having to see a poor person.
So all ded at 65 then.
I think that is a very optimistic number. The first 15 years are already a negative contribution.