Bryan Johnson· Author
for example solving air pollution in India would add more average life expectancy than treating all cancers there
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
for example solving air pollution in India would add more average life expectancy than treating all cancers there
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
an increased life expectancy of 3.57 years (5).
The evidence shows that India would improve the health of its population more by cleaning up air quality than by curing all cancers.
India would save more years of life by solving air pollution than curing cancer.
The evidence shows that India would improve the health of its population more by cleaning up air quality than by curing all cancers.
India is better off solving its air quality than it is curing all cancer mhm they would extend lives more
India would increase it would improve the health of their citizens more by addressing air pollution than by solving cancer that's how big of a deal it is
Improving air quality in India is better, than, curing cancer
So, and like you're saying Kate, if they actually India would do would do better for their population to address air pollution than solve all cancer. It would actually extend lifespan more.
The stat that Kate mentioned was that India would do more to improve the health of their citizens by addressing air quality than by curing cancer.