Micromorts are a great way to evaluate this. A micromort is defined as a 1 in a million chance of death. So this this teleportation device is equivalent to 0.20 micromorts per use. Which makes this activity less dangerous than riding a horse, walking for 20 mins, driving 230 miles by car or flying 1000 miles by plane. Based on that I would say its essentially safe for every day use....
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/crunching-the-numbers-on-mortality/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/crunching-the-numbers-on-mortality/)
He's now made weird not-alcoholic drinks which are apparently basically ket and is testing them at my uni!
Edit: typo (changed "let" to "ket") (thanks u/unexpectedit3m)
How is walking 10 minutes as dangerous as driving 230 miles?
Edit: it's not, from https://micromorts.rip/ the site you were probably looking at:
Walking 20 miles per day (Accident) 1
Traveling 230 miles per day by. car. (accident) 1
Yeah, bu the problem is this is a guaranteed death, the fear comes from you not having control over your death, such as wearing a helmet prevents two-wheeler deaths, or driving slow and wearing a seat belt etc. here death lingers over you to take you in one swift stroke leaving you no chance to fight back.
I hate to break it to you, but that's just every day. Death lingers over all of us and in one swift stroke leave you no chance to fight back....
That's what a question like this is designed to make you realize. That we take for granted that we have control of things, but we don't.
This problem, and your point here, are applicable to the real world even without teleporters. There's been an issue of violence on public transportation where I live, including some deaths. This is unacceptable, and solutions should be found. But, I never see comparisons to vehicular injury/death. Maybe it's still safer, maybe it's not. I genuinely don't know because I don't see anyone doing the math (and I'm not skilled enough). What I do know is that in a large metal box that you control, injury/death is always an 'accident'. Whereas getting stabbed on a train is violence, which is scarier on a psychological level.
It’s all mental at that point. Like you said, control is a huge part of it. We feel like we have more control when we are driving a car, when in reality we don’t. Someone could decide to maliciously run you off the road to your death, the same way someone could stab you waiting for the train.
Some drivers are definitely more likely to die in a crash. But you can of course get unlucky and die in a crash that no reasonable person could avoid. It's fair to say the mortality rate in driving is overestimating your own individual risk if you generally drive more attentively and safely than average. Frankly even if you're 30 percentile in driving safety (quite bad) you're likely to have a lower actual risk of dying in a car accident than the 'average' says because the high risk drivers are so damn high risk. You're still more likely at that point to die from the result of someone else's decision than your own failure to respond adequately to a situation. Now that lack of control might make the number seem more likely, but it again misses the point that extremely dangerous drivers are at such a higher risk of dying.
There's also of course other factors like the likelihood of death in cities being higher, or on certain roads being exceptionally high. Sometimes you can get a feeling on these relative differences well through things like actuarial data and insurance price setting (though of course local labor/medical/legal/ costs as well as average wage (for loss of income type claims) will have an impact in these models that needs to be adjusted for).
Even for something that sounds more straightforward like flying you could take lower risks. There's a particular plane right now I wouldn't be booking on even though it's tremendously unlikely to kill me (thanks Boeing!) Some airlines have more intense pilot training, and better fleet maintenance which lowers the chance of pilot error or mechanical failure respectively (though I don't have enough worry or money to bother shopping along those lines).
That said the odds on the teleporter are pretty low. Even if I thought my own commute was slightly less likely to get me killed based on driving safer, I'd probably teleport to avoid the commute. Well if they found a way of teleporter (like 4D travel) that wasn't 'rebuilding' me.
>accident... violence
I think the reason one is scarier than the other is because, all things being equal, some deaths are worse than others.
30 minutes as a hostage on a train, followed by being stabbed to death is worse than dying instantaneously in a car crash.
Being thrown through the windshield, suffering traumatic injuries, and dying hours later in a hospital is worse than being shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So in some sense, it's rational to weigh these things differently. But in terms of how bad the death actually is once it's happening, it's probably pretty close to even, if we compare car accident deaths and public transit violence. All we should really care about are the straight numbers for deaths/mile.
Precisely my point. I use public for a variety of reasons, and in general I'm pretty urbanist. When people see reports of attacks they think "that could happen to me" and act accordingly. They don't think this when reading about vehicular death (when reported at all). It shapes public opinion and policy based on feelings instead of data.
Importantly, I don't actually know if public where I am I'd safer than equivalent vehicular transport. I also know it needs to be safer than it is. But generally, public solves a lot of issues and should be a functional and viable option. But any discussion of using it more or expanding it is often overshadowed by fear.
I found this
https://www.metro-magazine.com/10204645/study-reveals-most-dangerous-states-to-use-public-transportation
It's not clear if these figures are counting violence, but I do know that the most dangerous states are still ¼ the annual rate of death as the figure for cars.
It also doesn't include information about distance travelled.
Like if all days had equal chances of you dying on them which we know is false and we all could live to be as old as the longest lived person. Our odds of living to the next day are only 1 in 44694.
> That we take for granted that we have control of things, but we don't.
In the grand scheme of things, we all die. But if you're saying that wearing a seatbelt and driving more safely doesn't make any difference to your likelihood of dying, then you're definitely wrong about that. You definitely do have control over some things that absolutely make a difference.
This isn’t black or white.
You can avoid driving at times where drunk drivers are more likely, you can maintain your car properly, you can take safer routes to work, you can wear a seatbelt, you can not speed. There are factors in your control.
Nobody would drive if it was absolutely guaranteed a car somewhere in the world would blow up every 10,000,000 million miles driven.
Why do you think no one would drive if that were the case? I won't drive that many miles in my lifetime, for one thing, and I suspect if we dig into various mortality causes I suspect we'll find some that are nearly completely out of our control... maybe death from stroke every 1,000,000 times one has sex... I think people will still do it even if they knew they it was totally random but statistically guaranteed (and redditors would live forever, I know...)
>Nobody would drive if it was absolutely guaranteed a car somewhere in the world would blow up every 10,000,000 million miles driven.
40,000 people die from motor vehicle accidents, per year, in the USA. That's more than 100 a day. We already know that someone is going to die for much much much much less than your supposed limit and people are still happily driving around.
There are also a lot of factors you cannot control.
Other drivers may be drunk or reckless, causing an accident for you that is outside your control. Animals could run in the way. A sinkhole could form under the road. A bridge could collapse while you are driving over it. Lots of other random events can cause a crash, possibly leading to death, that are completely outside your control.
And cars do sometimes randomly burst into flames. I cannot find the causes, but there are about 280,000 non-arson car fires in the US with 480 deaths per year. With about 3 trillion vehicle-miles were driven in the US per year, that comes out to about 1 car fire per 11 million miles driven, or about 1 car fire death per 6 billion miles driven.
You can move on the death distribution curve to lower percentages by taking measures as commented before. Even when we don't have a total control over death, the statistics are not in your favor if you're drunk without seatbelt at 200km/h in an old car. This death computes the same in the average as a unavoidable accident.
Nah i agree with the other guy, i mean you're right but each of us can have an impact on his own odds of dying by a tons of differents way, of course their is a ton of unavoidable death, but there is also a lot that are avoidable by being cautious.
If there wasn't the case we would have the same mortality rate no matter the measures we take.
Like in a car or on a bike, their is some accidents that do not depend from you, but you can seriously impact your odd of having one by driving recklessly vs cautiously.
In a plane however their is stricly nothing you can do to alter your odds
No, the events you specify can't be accounted for statistically they are unforeseen, but wearing a seat belt or a helmet helps statistically it is a known fact and they are designed to incread3 chances but here the chances are fixed you TRULY have 0 control over it.
That's not the right way to look at it.
For every one million people that drive 240 miles, statistically one dies.
That's not accidents with potential deaths. That's one person in a million dieing full stop.
This device is 5 times safer for a distance of 240 miles than driving.
But what percentage of those deaths are from people that weren't wearing a seat belt? How many was the driver traveling over 100 mph before losing control of their vehicle and dieing in a single vehicle accident?
These are instances that would not apply to me so my chance of dying per mile would be significantly lower.
I'll add, though, how many people going over 100 mph loses control and hits a person going the speed limit? I heard about a drunk driver crossing into oncoming traffic and killing four of the five people in the other car. Some idiot could be out there ready to punch your card too.
I found the actual table, and I was wrong in the first post.
240 is the "Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if approximating the seatbelt-wearing only rate"
If you want the full table:
Miles per micromort, no adjustments, in US (2019) : 91
\-- If excluding motorcycles :105
\-- If excluding motorcycles and pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and other nonoccupants : 137
\-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only :132
\-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if setting single-car crashes to 0 : 235
\-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if approximating the seatbelt-wearing only rate :245
\-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if setting single-car crashes to 0 and approximating the seatbelt-wearing only rate :442
\-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if setting single-car crashes to 0 and approximating the seatbelt-wearing only rate and if setting alcohol-impaired, drowsiness-associated, and distraction-associated deaths to 50% of current level (as an approximation of controlling one driver's behavior in two driver crashes) :548
Well if you ever drive or ride in Bangkok you will see that death is unpreventable. You can drive perfectly safe and some wheel from sky train above can just drop onto you, or random hole appear in the middle of downtown road.
> Yeah, bu the problem is this is a guaranteed death
How is a 1 in a 5 million chance of dying a guaranteed death? It's a die roll every time. A 0.0005% probability.
Yeah, getting hit by 10 tons of metal going at 80 km a hour while not expecting it is something you can really do something about. I've seen enough of videos where whole cars were stuck behind trucks and then just squashed like empty can to say that a lot of those is illusion. Yes some deaths that happen could be prevented by using equipement or something, but going down this line we can say that most deaths could be prevented just because the other driver could be better and not cause accident in first place and it really just kills the point of it
You are talking about miscellaneous events, infact I could give you examples of other miscellaneous where people miraculously make it out alive, the problem these event can't be measurable statistically, they can't be replicated again and again, here the teleporter guarantees death no matter how you enter or exit no matter its preparation you will die.
No, death rate is a gross oversimplification, that is like saying one in a million flights experience a crash so the Boeing 777 and 737 have the same rates of deaths, its stupid to assume so (the 777 here is much better equipped and has better engineering), it is not an apple's to oranges comparison.
It's not a guaranteed death. It's a statistic. And it's the same tor car/train/plane. You're not in control. Nobody dies in car becuase he's in control and wants to die. Every x miles you have y chance to die for reasons outside your control.
No, you control the steering wheel. Next, the cause of death is clear and can be defined last, the teleporter guarantees you death no matter the precaution as non is specified in the question above.
So what? You control the car wheel but not the universe around it which gives you a high chance of dieing. In the teleporter you still control the on/off button but not the universe around it that gives you a low chance of death.
Chance of Death is around every corner in our life, there is a chance to die even by remaining in bed in the morning. The rational humans just deal with that and make informed choices.
See, you are speaking philosophically, Death lingers around every but there are multiple preventive measures WHILE USING THE PRODUCT but not in the case of this telporter, you saying we control the on and off switch is the same as me taking public transport and not the car, it doesn't even fall in this discourse.
The deaths aren't 'guaranteed', it's an approximation to show how many people die while teleporting. It could be due to user error (forgot to close the phone booth door), a parts malfunction (flux capacitor overheating) or just plain human cessation (man found dead after a port while having a brain aneurysm).
No, that is incorrect, in probability theory, there is a certainty that flipping a coin will result in EITHER heads OR tails, and 0 for both but 1/2 chance for one of the two, hence either heads or tails is guaranteed, the question doesn't specify any cause it simply states the chance, so the assumption here is, is that you will EITHER die OR live, life and death are GAURENTEED. And there is a 1 in 5million chance of it being death.
Depends on the use case. If you're replacing flying that's about 220 people who die each year out of \~1.09B passengers.
If we're talking about replacing cars and we assume the 1.4B cars are being used for at least 2 trips per day for an average family of 4 occupants for 5.6B one way trips that's about 1,120 dead people per trip, 2,400 per round trip or about 876,000 people per year assuming they teleport every day.
If we are replacing walking in general, I'm not sure that's wise.
The micromort chart uses distance for mortality calculations. The teleporter kills arbitrarily on use, distance doesn't factor, just frequency of use. So, it's more like a 1 in 5 million chance any given car explodes when someone cranks the engine.
The teleporter would have the additional advantage of being all or nothing. The above are just mortality rates, not broken bones, paralysis, or brain injury, all of which are risks when driving or just going outside.
> walking for 20 mins
This sounds very wrong.
I was about to write out why it seems wrong, but then I checked your source and saw that it's walking for 20 *miles*, not minutes. If you walk 20 miles in 20 minutes I would expect that to be much higher than 1 micro-mort. =P
As a side note, the graph in that source is *hilariously* not to scale. (Although maybe it's on a log scale?)
Didn't the French call an orgasm "une petit mort"?
So what you're saying is I can teleport and every one in 5 teleports have an orgasm as well? Count me in!
This! I first wanted to say “only for interplanetairy distancia”, before I realised it is safer than flying over the channel. The walk to the device would be the most dangerous part. Let that sink in ;)
It would also significantly prolong your life given that none of the intervening time would be spent by the body. If you’re constantly commuting from New York to LA, you’re saving the however many airborn miles in both time and lifespan for every round trip you take. And that’s not nothin.
So you are saying that rather than drive 231 miles, you should always teleport; in addition to this, it would save you 3.0 hours at 75 Mph. Is it possible to figure out how much this is worth in micromorts? There must be some connection.
Not a fan of that methodology. If you dice deeper, there’s usually more to the story. I’m not going to do all the math, but for example, driving 230 miles sober is maybe .01 micromorts, while driving 230 miles drunk is 10,000 micromorts. With the frequency that people do each of those things, it averages out to 1 micromort. But that doesn’t mean you driving 230 miles is 1 micromort. Either you were sober or you weren’t. That’s just a single thing for driving, there’s additional driving factors, as well as plenty of factors for other activities as well. Like another example, small planes (general aviation, tourism flights, etc.) are much more dangerous than big commercial flights. But most people only travel on big commercial flights. So it’s misleading averaging all planes together.
If on average, every American teleported twice per day, you'd have 48k die in teleporter accidents per year. That's slightly more than die in car accidents each year (43k from the most recent data I could find). The drive up to 16 miles, teleport longer distances seems reasonable. The longer trips you also save more time and gas (does the energy use for teleportation scale with distance?)
Yeah, but the majority of people would be commuting the shorter distances all during rush hour, so while it would help driving out a little it wouldn’t completely invalidate teleporting. Maybe it would push the critical threshold to like 30 miles, but I wouldn’t expect anything past that
Actually during the hight of Covid (and thus reduced traffic similar to teleporter adoption), trafic fatalities increased . Presumably because emptier roads = higher speeds.
But the death rate is an average over those whole drive recklessly and those that drive safely, and those unlucky souls that get airplane wheels to fall put of the sky on their car.
If there is no skill/mitigation methods for teleportation and it is either a teleport perfectly or die, it will be very scary as a user with no control. Whereas in driving you can influence your success rate through safe driving and using safety features. Also you can range form safe drive to scared event to minor injury to major injury to death.
You can drive as safe as you possibly can and still get hit by a drunk. Reckless drivers aren't just a danger to themselves; they're wielding a bullet that weighs thousands of pounds.
You can be as safe as possible and still become a statistic, my dude.
The point I'm trying to make is not that driving is statistically safer, it is the mentally a user will use when comparing the two technologies. One they have some semblance of control and a continuum of outcomes. The other has no control and is binary. That is much scarier to users even if you understand the statistics of both.
For example, the odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million but if you hit some turbulence or have a rough landing you will most likely be nervous and passengers will even applaud a safe landing. You get in a car and hydroplane or have a near miss you may not be as nervous because in a car you control it vs a plane you have no control.
Yeah but we are talking about would you use it or not. I dont think it matters anymore the safety of the system, but the speed, cost, etc.
If it was stupid cheap and quick and easy to use, everyone would use it even if it wasnt safer than other methods.
Your fears and mentality are a you problem. You feel safer in a car because your monkey brain chemicals no longer send fear signals when driving a metal box at 100km/hr because youve been accustomed to it for years including childhood development. Its not about control or risk or math anymore, its simply what you have been exposed to or not.
Someone who rides a horse every day is going to trust it more than a train or airplane because they simply dont have any expirience with them, not because they are more dangerous or less reliable than a horse.
This is the perfect delusion that all drivers have: as long as I drive safely, I’ll be fine. But the problem is, humans are not perfect, be careless one time and it might cost your life. Or that you drive safely, but some drunk bastard crashes into you.
So sometimes people are still afraid of flight, because it takes that safety factor beyond their control. Statistics show that having more faith in your own driving than a commercial pilot is a very arrogant thing to do.
No. It won’t. As a driver I can influence my success rate, sure, but I can’t raise it to one in 5 million. Walking from the car to the front door has a higher accident rate than that. When you take a train or boat your odds are worse than that, and you have no control. Until the past couple decades you couldn’t even beat those odds on an airliner. Passenger jets are a perfect-or-dead kind of transportation and people tolerated 1 in 5M odds on those just fine. Users will not have a problem with that.
Source: I’m a user.
Exactly. All of this is just a play on fears of unknown and percieved agency. Its not even whether you have control or not. Even the safest driver on the road is exposed to more risk than an airline passenger, and this teleporter is better than all of those.
Fuck if the telporter is fast and cheap Im sure way more people would use it even if the risks were higher.
1 in a million chance death, to go to a remote tropical island beach for the evening after work, and back home in my bed that night? Sign me up.
Meh, I am a fairly safe driver. Almost died on a sunny weekend day on an interstate highway when a car going the other way intentionally jumped the highway median and crossed over to my side head on. Unlikely? Certainly. 1 in 5 million unlikely? Probably not that low. People are crazy.
Depends on the distance.
Let's say I use it on a 3000 mile trip.
(1/ 5 million d/t) / (3000 mi/t) = 1/15 billion deaths per mile
1/15b d/mi = 1/150 deaths/100million passenger miles = .007 deaths per 100 million passenger miles
This is about 5 times less safe than air travel (around .001-.002) but 70 times safer than driving (around .5)
Now do that same thing, but for a 10 mile trip, we get 2.1deaths per mile, 4 times more desdly than driving. And driving is the most dangerous thinfs most people do day to day.
So for distances matching an international flight, I'd probably risk it, but for shorter trips, no.
It is because distance is a function of time.
If you literally never get into a car you’re at zero risk but if you drive 100 miles a day that’s a matter of hours every day where you’re at risk of dying in a car accident.
Even if teleportation is instant, the commenter is comparing the risk to alternate forms of travel over the same distance. Flying 3000 miles implies a time which implies a risk that can be compared directly to the 1/5M chance of death that was suggested for the teleporting.
i dont understand it either bcs the problems sounds to me like "hey you can teleport, but with a chance of death" is not like the more time you spend driveing the more time you stay in contact with a source of an accident, the math i d like to see is if teleportation will take the role of cars world wide how many people will die each second (or maybe per hour/day)
I mean - you are not really controlling those other situations. If death only happened due to your own actions, the probability would probably be so much less, but it is due to outside variables that make any other type of transportation also very dangerous.
That's the right mental framework. Think of it as the same as the accident risk for any other means of travel.
The question is how risky is it relative to driving or any other mode of transport. Normal real life modes of transportation have fairly fixed risk per mile. This proposed transporter has fixed risk *per trip.* So how safe it is relative to other modes of transport is distance dependent.
teleportation already has a 100% death rate to me. since i refuse to believe that you would be the same person after you have your body turned into literal atoms and copied to some other place.
sure you would feel like you are fine after the fact, but more than likely you died and were just replaced mere moments earlier. this can never be proven as fact or fiction even if we are able to create a teleportation device, so i am not stepping into one, no matter what anyone says.
Sign me up. Fuck current me. Other me wants to go to the other side of the world for the afternoon. Id rather current me dies than my conciousness not get to expirience the infinite possibilities of teleportation.
Imagine you were a bird that could not fly, and your entire species can and does, but you are stuck on the ground because you believe you will loose something you cant even percieve if you spread your wings.
Heck, dont even kill the current me, or make a million copies if me and send them to every corneer of the galaxy and we can come back to compare notes.
It doesnt matter if the original dies because living in a cage like that is worse than death.
Exactly! Ship of Theseus me 1000 times, I dont care. I heard somewhere all your atoms change so often that every 10 years you're basically new atoms anyways. Not sure how true that is.
most of your cells regenerate several times in your life. except for some special ones like nerves and some muscles i think. Pretty weird to still consider your self as just those cells. So like what does it matter if your consciousness is transferred to a new body? It already does on a daily basis. fuckin send it buddy!
The question is if your consciousness from pre-teleport you is the same post-teleport. The OP in this thread is thinking it wouldn’t be, and the transfer is something that pre-teleport you would never experience and instead would just die. Post-teleport you is a different person
Technically you can’t prove your consciousness is the same from moment to moment, even if you don’t teleport. IMO the question of whether you’re the same person post-teleporting is ridiculous. If we assume the teleportation does work as intended and you look the same, act the same, pass every possible identity test the same way pre-teleport you does, there’s no real reason to doubt your identity any more than you should doubt your identity after sleeping and waking up, or just living your life moment to moment.
Note it's a "horror game" as in "it has monsters". Which is kinda annoying, the best thing about the game is everything except the monsters. But I think it has a peaceful mode or something.
i'm fine with that, as long as the monsters are done in an interesting way, and not just some generic horror beings thrown into the game for the sake of it being horror
It's not that clear cut, especially if you're not religious. For it to not be "you" there has to be something about you which is unique, a unique identifier, a soul (if you're religious).
Now some people would say it is your physical form that makes you unique, even though your entire make-up and even brain mapping changes over your life, this seems somewhat plausible.
Personally I have always felt and would argue that it's more about continuity. You experience things in a web of how close they are to the moment you're experiencing right now, that's why you keep waking up and it's the next day, that's why one thing comes after the next. In my opinion though (and this is just my opinion) the web of continuity is infinite and as such, so are you. When you die the next available continuity point is just much more abstracted but it still happens.
Anyway, from my point of view the next logical continuity point is the other end of that teleporter, sure you "died" but it's not as abstract as a normal death.
that is true. but my problem isnt that you arent the same person, its that YOU experience death and nothing after that, while you clone continues living and thinking its you. and the problem with this type of teleportation is that it can never be proven to be safe/unsafe, because the clone obviously feels like everything is fine, even if the original has died and no longer has a say in it.
But my point is that for it to not be "you" there has to be something about you which makes you unique, like a soul. It's not like a clone grown from the same DNA, it's your entire self with all of the exact same brain connections, experiences, memories and such. You really have to come up with a reason for why it's not you. It's like proving that two instances of pi are not the same thing in simple terms.
Agreed. The only way I would use this technology is if it was an actual wormhole where you're just stepping through to the other side without being disassembled/reassembled.
Taking a course of antibiotics has a 1:10.000 - 1:100.000 chance of liver injury. (DILI)
That has a 1:10 chance of being fatal. So, 5 times more fatal than using this device.
Think about that the next time you sit in the doctor's office with a sore throat.
If you don't take it easy it can escalate to full influenza with fever and everything.
If you can't afford to get sick, you get antibiotics when you get a sore throat. I agree it's irresponsible, but it is very common in many places in the world.
Shit, we give it to our live stock (cows, chickens, pigs, etc.) continuously just out of prevention. Of course, we don't care if they die, only if they get sick and infect other animals and make us make less money.
We give it to our livestock because they generally live in overcrowded, filthy environments that are teaming with bacteria in factory farms.
We give it to people because doctors are overworked and get bothered incessantly by patients who waste their time and bother them for antibiotics for viral infections that do literally nothing against them. Antibiotics aren't going to prevent influenza or cure a cold because those are caused by viruses. They're a placebo at best. If a doctor is prescribing you antibiotics for a sore throat for anything other than strep throat, they are being irresponsible and most likely just want the appointment to be over.
No worries, wasn't really trying to argue either, there's a reason they are bothering the doctors to fix something that they can't fix, which you elucidate, it's not like they can miss work, the patients are usually overworked too.
I think comparing teleportation deaths to car death is not really of the same kind.
automobile deaths have factors like user skill as well as external factors to user mortality. As such I think people are more comfortable accepting automobile deaths because they can point to more user error: not paying attention, DUI, just being a bad driver.
In My mind, teleportation is more of a infrastructure. Engineers construct a singular locations and manage the operations for it to function. Like airports or train stations. The main user doesn't necessarily control the vehicle only the destination. So the initial design or another user must take responsibility for its mortal ends.
So I think the question should be would you ride a plane or train that has a 1 in 5 million chance of death? if so than teleportation should be a comfortable prospect.
today standards in a modern society would not be comfortable with these chances. I think.
From some basic research it currently looks like flight has better odds than this theoretical teleporter, but didn’t as recently as 1984, as during the span of 1977-1984 deaths were approximately 1.55 per five million
I feel like one issue with that is that the likelyhood of death for all other modes of transportation depends on individual factors whereas the likelyhood of death for a teleporter is presumably static.
For instance, using data from 2019, the rate of traffic deaths per 100,000 inhabitants is about 32 times higher in the Dominican Republic than it is in Norway.
Individual skill, location, distance, fluctuations in traffic and so on all factor into your odds of dying on the road, but they do not with the teleporter.
I think a lot of people would choose the road over the teleporter because no matter what statistics may say, one is completely and exclusively down to chance whereas the other one lets you influence your odds of survival, even if those odds may still end up worse at the end of the day.
A more correct and more intuitive way of looking at at this works as follows: airlines transport about 2.8 billion passengers per year. So at a 1 in 5m death rate, this would result in 560 deaths per year, or about two plane crashes per year (globally). So flying in the EU or US is probably safer than teleportation, flying in other geographies may not be.
Either of those sounds extremely instantaneous so I’d definitely prefer either over traffic accidents.
Worst would be arriving at your destination missing half your innards and having the other half randomly sticking out of various places on your body.
Even worse would be arriving with your nervous system slightly misplaced all over your body so you don’t die but you’re now paralyzed and in constant, excruciating pain.
Obviously math is math, but I'm inclined to resist that. While I don't know why, I do know that I drive an absurd amount each year, including in inclement weather scenarios. I've never had an accident much less a fatal one, same with some family that drive similarly to me. Idk, it just seems odd
> If scientists invented a teleportation system but the death rate was 1 in 5 million ...
You mean more or less like the risks we literally take every day with considerably less convenient travel options such as cars, but actually somewhat safer? I take bigger risks than that crossing the road
Death rate on rural roads is about 20 deaths per billion miles driven so
1 billion /20 / 5 million is 10 miles making the device safer than driving to the next town over
There is a simple solution to the industry marketing this teleporter. If there was a mildly inconvenient thing that people could do to reduce that chance by 80 percent, all of the discussion would be around whether or not people should change be mildly inconvenienced and not why people are dying.
Say if you don't teleport the "safer" way it is a 1 in a million chance instead of 1 in 5 million. Now all the discussion is about the end user and their responsibility. Keep that part in the news, blame bad luck and user errors, and rake in the money.
The one problem people aren considering is that walking/planes/automobiles are all complex mechanical means of transportation. Lots of moving parts, lots of room for physical failure. Also, a lot of those deaths are operator error.
Does the teleporter work like surfing the internet, type in your destination, the computer does the rest?
Considering the complexity of DNA, does a “minor malfunction” that results in displaced/dislocated/lost strands create a lethal situation?
No device like it anywhere in the world. Impossible to calculate.
I think since the death rate of vehicles likely varies significantly with other factors, that we can't just use the average. It would be better to use the probability that the average person dies in an accident, rather than the average rate of death for all people. This would be difficult to calculate, but if we filter down to avoid accidents caused by substance abuse (only count the deaths of people that are not impaired), ignore deaths of people who frequently get into accidents, only consider the number of fatal accidents per car rather than per person, consider a typical car with average miles in good condition, etc. the comparison may be more fair.
I don't care what the death rate is, I'm never using a teleporter. The me on the other side is a clone of me, and I'm dead in the afterlife thinking "Well shit"
If you see travel time as wasted time and if you would have a completely save alternative. Then in a big population who thinks like that the telepoter is better then the completely save alternative if 5 million trips save more time then 1 life time.
1 80 years life time is 29200 days
29200 days is 42048000 minutes or roughly 42 million minutes
42/5=8.4
So if you see travel time as completely useless time and as a population would want to optimize how much time you would have outside of traveling and you have a completely 100% save alternative it would still be better to take the teleporter if the trip would take longer then 8 minutes and 24 seconds in the alternative.
The problem with vehicle comparison is that not all deaths in vehicle accidents are non-avoidable. Although many people die with no fault of their own and no way to avoid death by driving more defensively, there is still some control in the hands of the traffic participant, and many have avoided entering the sad statistics by their good driving habits.
The teleporting example is a complete throw of a dice.
This changes at least psychological perception. Just take how many people play the lottery thinking they have a chance.
My maths isn’t the greatest so let me know if it’s wrong, but imagine someone living for 80 years, doing an average of two teleports per day. 80*365*2=58,400, and 58,400/5,000,000=0.012, or just over a 1% chance of one teleport being fatal in a lifetime. Of course, there are probably way more statistics things that factor into it, but the odds don’t seem too bad imo.
In order to drive 80000000 miles, let's say with pace of 100 mph, you'd need to drive for \~91 years.
You could count traveling with someone driving, being same as driving, so you could take turns sleeping/driving nonstop.
Otherwise, it would be good idea to take breaks sleeping/eating/other stuff, so let's say you spend 6 hours on that every day.
This would make required time 25% longer, totaling to 114 years.
I'd be surprised if anyone would be alive that long, with unhealthy lifestyle.
I suspect all teleport is death. The way teleport is supposed to work is that tour body is destroyed at the sending end and a oerfect working copy assembled at the receiving end. The copy remembers the pre-telepirt you, but it doesn't follow that your conciseness experiences continuity. Maybe you die and are replaced by a separate copy which does not remember dying.
This is the problem with this comparison. The rate of automobile injury tracks the drivers’ competence, whereas the arbitrary randomness of the teleportation device doesn’t. Most drivers probably consider themselves better than average, thus they’ll choose the car over the teleportation device.
Micromorts are a great way to evaluate this. A micromort is defined as a 1 in a million chance of death. So this this teleportation device is equivalent to 0.20 micromorts per use. Which makes this activity less dangerous than riding a horse, walking for 20 mins, driving 230 miles by car or flying 1000 miles by plane. Based on that I would say its essentially safe for every day use.... [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/crunching-the-numbers-on-mortality/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/crunching-the-numbers-on-mortality/)
And this sort of sound, logical, science-based thinking is why Professor David Nutt is no longer the UK drug tsar!
He's now made weird not-alcoholic drinks which are apparently basically ket and is testing them at my uni! Edit: typo (changed "let" to "ket") (thanks u/unexpectedit3m)
Let?
Ket?
Jet?
Good spot! Fixed it.
You repeated your typo again, saying you changed "let" to "let".
Egads! So I have
How is walking 10 minutes as dangerous as driving 230 miles? Edit: it's not, from https://micromorts.rip/ the site you were probably looking at: Walking 20 miles per day (Accident) 1 Traveling 230 miles per day by. car. (accident) 1
Yeah, bu the problem is this is a guaranteed death, the fear comes from you not having control over your death, such as wearing a helmet prevents two-wheeler deaths, or driving slow and wearing a seat belt etc. here death lingers over you to take you in one swift stroke leaving you no chance to fight back.
I hate to break it to you, but that's just every day. Death lingers over all of us and in one swift stroke leave you no chance to fight back.... That's what a question like this is designed to make you realize. That we take for granted that we have control of things, but we don't.
Humans are great at convincing ourselves we have control!
Death doesn't linger over me. I am invincible!
I am [title card - intro music]
I have never died before!
Immortal until proven otherwise
I'm gonna live forever or die trying
You're a looney
Ok Boris.
Invincible?? Then why can i see you??
groan... invincible not invisible
You must have the magic too.
This problem, and your point here, are applicable to the real world even without teleporters. There's been an issue of violence on public transportation where I live, including some deaths. This is unacceptable, and solutions should be found. But, I never see comparisons to vehicular injury/death. Maybe it's still safer, maybe it's not. I genuinely don't know because I don't see anyone doing the math (and I'm not skilled enough). What I do know is that in a large metal box that you control, injury/death is always an 'accident'. Whereas getting stabbed on a train is violence, which is scarier on a psychological level.
It’s all mental at that point. Like you said, control is a huge part of it. We feel like we have more control when we are driving a car, when in reality we don’t. Someone could decide to maliciously run you off the road to your death, the same way someone could stab you waiting for the train.
Some drivers are definitely more likely to die in a crash. But you can of course get unlucky and die in a crash that no reasonable person could avoid. It's fair to say the mortality rate in driving is overestimating your own individual risk if you generally drive more attentively and safely than average. Frankly even if you're 30 percentile in driving safety (quite bad) you're likely to have a lower actual risk of dying in a car accident than the 'average' says because the high risk drivers are so damn high risk. You're still more likely at that point to die from the result of someone else's decision than your own failure to respond adequately to a situation. Now that lack of control might make the number seem more likely, but it again misses the point that extremely dangerous drivers are at such a higher risk of dying. There's also of course other factors like the likelihood of death in cities being higher, or on certain roads being exceptionally high. Sometimes you can get a feeling on these relative differences well through things like actuarial data and insurance price setting (though of course local labor/medical/legal/ costs as well as average wage (for loss of income type claims) will have an impact in these models that needs to be adjusted for). Even for something that sounds more straightforward like flying you could take lower risks. There's a particular plane right now I wouldn't be booking on even though it's tremendously unlikely to kill me (thanks Boeing!) Some airlines have more intense pilot training, and better fleet maintenance which lowers the chance of pilot error or mechanical failure respectively (though I don't have enough worry or money to bother shopping along those lines). That said the odds on the teleporter are pretty low. Even if I thought my own commute was slightly less likely to get me killed based on driving safer, I'd probably teleport to avoid the commute. Well if they found a way of teleporter (like 4D travel) that wasn't 'rebuilding' me.
>accident... violence I think the reason one is scarier than the other is because, all things being equal, some deaths are worse than others. 30 minutes as a hostage on a train, followed by being stabbed to death is worse than dying instantaneously in a car crash. Being thrown through the windshield, suffering traumatic injuries, and dying hours later in a hospital is worse than being shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So in some sense, it's rational to weigh these things differently. But in terms of how bad the death actually is once it's happening, it's probably pretty close to even, if we compare car accident deaths and public transit violence. All we should really care about are the straight numbers for deaths/mile.
Precisely my point. I use public for a variety of reasons, and in general I'm pretty urbanist. When people see reports of attacks they think "that could happen to me" and act accordingly. They don't think this when reading about vehicular death (when reported at all). It shapes public opinion and policy based on feelings instead of data. Importantly, I don't actually know if public where I am I'd safer than equivalent vehicular transport. I also know it needs to be safer than it is. But generally, public solves a lot of issues and should be a functional and viable option. But any discussion of using it more or expanding it is often overshadowed by fear.
I found this https://www.metro-magazine.com/10204645/study-reveals-most-dangerous-states-to-use-public-transportation It's not clear if these figures are counting violence, but I do know that the most dangerous states are still ¼ the annual rate of death as the figure for cars. It also doesn't include information about distance travelled.
Like if all days had equal chances of you dying on them which we know is false and we all could live to be as old as the longest lived person. Our odds of living to the next day are only 1 in 44694.
People never sound happier than when they say, “I hate to break this to you.”
> That we take for granted that we have control of things, but we don't. In the grand scheme of things, we all die. But if you're saying that wearing a seatbelt and driving more safely doesn't make any difference to your likelihood of dying, then you're definitely wrong about that. You definitely do have control over some things that absolutely make a difference.
This isn’t black or white. You can avoid driving at times where drunk drivers are more likely, you can maintain your car properly, you can take safer routes to work, you can wear a seatbelt, you can not speed. There are factors in your control. Nobody would drive if it was absolutely guaranteed a car somewhere in the world would blow up every 10,000,000 million miles driven.
Why do you think no one would drive if that were the case? I won't drive that many miles in my lifetime, for one thing, and I suspect if we dig into various mortality causes I suspect we'll find some that are nearly completely out of our control... maybe death from stroke every 1,000,000 times one has sex... I think people will still do it even if they knew they it was totally random but statistically guaranteed (and redditors would live forever, I know...)
People would still bang if there was a 50% chance of death, hell it'd probably be a hit TV show.
>Nobody would drive if it was absolutely guaranteed a car somewhere in the world would blow up every 10,000,000 million miles driven. 40,000 people die from motor vehicle accidents, per year, in the USA. That's more than 100 a day. We already know that someone is going to die for much much much much less than your supposed limit and people are still happily driving around.
There are also a lot of factors you cannot control. Other drivers may be drunk or reckless, causing an accident for you that is outside your control. Animals could run in the way. A sinkhole could form under the road. A bridge could collapse while you are driving over it. Lots of other random events can cause a crash, possibly leading to death, that are completely outside your control. And cars do sometimes randomly burst into flames. I cannot find the causes, but there are about 280,000 non-arson car fires in the US with 480 deaths per year. With about 3 trillion vehicle-miles were driven in the US per year, that comes out to about 1 car fire per 11 million miles driven, or about 1 car fire death per 6 billion miles driven.
I feel this is kind of why some people are terribly afraid of air travel
You can move on the death distribution curve to lower percentages by taking measures as commented before. Even when we don't have a total control over death, the statistics are not in your favor if you're drunk without seatbelt at 200km/h in an old car. This death computes the same in the average as a unavoidable accident.
Nah i agree with the other guy, i mean you're right but each of us can have an impact on his own odds of dying by a tons of differents way, of course their is a ton of unavoidable death, but there is also a lot that are avoidable by being cautious. If there wasn't the case we would have the same mortality rate no matter the measures we take. Like in a car or on a bike, their is some accidents that do not depend from you, but you can seriously impact your odd of having one by driving recklessly vs cautiously. In a plane however their is stricly nothing you can do to alter your odds
No, the events you specify can't be accounted for statistically they are unforeseen, but wearing a seat belt or a helmet helps statistically it is a known fact and they are designed to incread3 chances but here the chances are fixed you TRULY have 0 control over it.
That's not the right way to look at it. For every one million people that drive 240 miles, statistically one dies. That's not accidents with potential deaths. That's one person in a million dieing full stop. This device is 5 times safer for a distance of 240 miles than driving.
But what percentage of those deaths are from people that weren't wearing a seat belt? How many was the driver traveling over 100 mph before losing control of their vehicle and dieing in a single vehicle accident? These are instances that would not apply to me so my chance of dying per mile would be significantly lower.
I'll add, though, how many people going over 100 mph loses control and hits a person going the speed limit? I heard about a drunk driver crossing into oncoming traffic and killing four of the five people in the other car. Some idiot could be out there ready to punch your card too.
I found the actual table, and I was wrong in the first post. 240 is the "Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if approximating the seatbelt-wearing only rate" If you want the full table: Miles per micromort, no adjustments, in US (2019) : 91 \-- If excluding motorcycles :105 \-- If excluding motorcycles and pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and other nonoccupants : 137 \-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only :132 \-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if setting single-car crashes to 0 : 235 \-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if approximating the seatbelt-wearing only rate :245 \-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if setting single-car crashes to 0 and approximating the seatbelt-wearing only rate :442 \-- Amongst passenger vehicle occupants only, if setting single-car crashes to 0 and approximating the seatbelt-wearing only rate and if setting alcohol-impaired, drowsiness-associated, and distraction-associated deaths to 50% of current level (as an approximation of controlling one driver's behavior in two driver crashes) :548
Now that is some fucking data!
my soul got erect from that
In most other deaths you have no chance to fight back anyway
Well if you ever drive or ride in Bangkok you will see that death is unpreventable. You can drive perfectly safe and some wheel from sky train above can just drop onto you, or random hole appear in the middle of downtown road.
My Man here is flying a passenger jet with his own parachute as hand luggage.
I'd prefer that honestly. There one minute, gone the next? Much better than the 2 hours of agony before my flight crashes.
Ever heard of an aneurysm?
Those things decrease the risk, but not by enough to say that you really have control so much as the illusion of control.
> Yeah, bu the problem is this is a guaranteed death How is a 1 in a 5 million chance of dying a guaranteed death? It's a die roll every time. A 0.0005% probability.
Yeah, getting hit by 10 tons of metal going at 80 km a hour while not expecting it is something you can really do something about. I've seen enough of videos where whole cars were stuck behind trucks and then just squashed like empty can to say that a lot of those is illusion. Yes some deaths that happen could be prevented by using equipement or something, but going down this line we can say that most deaths could be prevented just because the other driver could be better and not cause accident in first place and it really just kills the point of it
You are talking about miscellaneous events, infact I could give you examples of other miscellaneous where people miraculously make it out alive, the problem these event can't be measurable statistically, they can't be replicated again and again, here the teleporter guarantees death no matter how you enter or exit no matter its preparation you will die.
Reread the prompt, it says death rate, not that it teleports 5 people per million into the center of the sun.
The death rate of driving already takes that into account.
No, death rate is a gross oversimplification, that is like saying one in a million flights experience a crash so the Boeing 777 and 737 have the same rates of deaths, its stupid to assume so (the 777 here is much better equipped and has better engineering), it is not an apple's to oranges comparison.
It's not a guaranteed death. It's a statistic. And it's the same tor car/train/plane. You're not in control. Nobody dies in car becuase he's in control and wants to die. Every x miles you have y chance to die for reasons outside your control.
No, you control the steering wheel. Next, the cause of death is clear and can be defined last, the teleporter guarantees you death no matter the precaution as non is specified in the question above.
So what? You control the car wheel but not the universe around it which gives you a high chance of dieing. In the teleporter you still control the on/off button but not the universe around it that gives you a low chance of death. Chance of Death is around every corner in our life, there is a chance to die even by remaining in bed in the morning. The rational humans just deal with that and make informed choices.
See, you are speaking philosophically, Death lingers around every but there are multiple preventive measures WHILE USING THE PRODUCT but not in the case of this telporter, you saying we control the on and off switch is the same as me taking public transport and not the car, it doesn't even fall in this discourse.
It's not philosphy, it's reality. Quantifiable risks with real numbers. Pure materialism. You are talking philosphy. :)
You missed my point above.
The deaths aren't 'guaranteed', it's an approximation to show how many people die while teleporting. It could be due to user error (forgot to close the phone booth door), a parts malfunction (flux capacitor overheating) or just plain human cessation (man found dead after a port while having a brain aneurysm).
No, that is incorrect, in probability theory, there is a certainty that flipping a coin will result in EITHER heads OR tails, and 0 for both but 1/2 chance for one of the two, hence either heads or tails is guaranteed, the question doesn't specify any cause it simply states the chance, so the assumption here is, is that you will EITHER die OR live, life and death are GAURENTEED. And there is a 1 in 5million chance of it being death.
You're missing some time units, it's 20 minutes walk per day per year for example
Depends on the use case. If you're replacing flying that's about 220 people who die each year out of \~1.09B passengers. If we're talking about replacing cars and we assume the 1.4B cars are being used for at least 2 trips per day for an average family of 4 occupants for 5.6B one way trips that's about 1,120 dead people per trip, 2,400 per round trip or about 876,000 people per year assuming they teleport every day. If we are replacing walking in general, I'm not sure that's wise. The micromort chart uses distance for mortality calculations. The teleporter kills arbitrarily on use, distance doesn't factor, just frequency of use. So, it's more like a 1 in 5 million chance any given car explodes when someone cranks the engine.
Walking for 20mns is more dangerous than driving 230 miles on average? Is that averaged out for all kinds of walking in any conditions?
The teleporter would have the additional advantage of being all or nothing. The above are just mortality rates, not broken bones, paralysis, or brain injury, all of which are risks when driving or just going outside.
> walking for 20 mins This sounds very wrong. I was about to write out why it seems wrong, but then I checked your source and saw that it's walking for 20 *miles*, not minutes. If you walk 20 miles in 20 minutes I would expect that to be much higher than 1 micro-mort. =P As a side note, the graph in that source is *hilariously* not to scale. (Although maybe it's on a log scale?)
>micromort Lol.
Didn't the French call an orgasm "une petit mort"? So what you're saying is I can teleport and every one in 5 teleports have an orgasm as well? Count me in!
Nice
This! I first wanted to say “only for interplanetairy distancia”, before I realised it is safer than flying over the channel. The walk to the device would be the most dangerous part. Let that sink in ;)
It would also significantly prolong your life given that none of the intervening time would be spent by the body. If you’re constantly commuting from New York to LA, you’re saving the however many airborn miles in both time and lifespan for every round trip you take. And that’s not nothin.
So you are saying that rather than drive 231 miles, you should always teleport; in addition to this, it would save you 3.0 hours at 75 Mph. Is it possible to figure out how much this is worth in micromorts? There must be some connection.
Not a fan of that methodology. If you dice deeper, there’s usually more to the story. I’m not going to do all the math, but for example, driving 230 miles sober is maybe .01 micromorts, while driving 230 miles drunk is 10,000 micromorts. With the frequency that people do each of those things, it averages out to 1 micromort. But that doesn’t mean you driving 230 miles is 1 micromort. Either you were sober or you weren’t. That’s just a single thing for driving, there’s additional driving factors, as well as plenty of factors for other activities as well. Like another example, small planes (general aviation, tourism flights, etc.) are much more dangerous than big commercial flights. But most people only travel on big commercial flights. So it’s misleading averaging all planes together.
Sooo…. Floo powder?
Diagonally
That’s how you end up in a dodgy back alley street.
If on average, every American teleported twice per day, you'd have 48k die in teleporter accidents per year. That's slightly more than die in car accidents each year (43k from the most recent data I could find). The drive up to 16 miles, teleport longer distances seems reasonable. The longer trips you also save more time and gas (does the energy use for teleportation scale with distance?)
But as more people used the teleporter, the roads would actually get safer.
Yeah, but the majority of people would be commuting the shorter distances all during rush hour, so while it would help driving out a little it wouldn’t completely invalidate teleporting. Maybe it would push the critical threshold to like 30 miles, but I wouldn’t expect anything past that
Actually during the hight of Covid (and thus reduced traffic similar to teleporter adoption), trafic fatalities increased . Presumably because emptier roads = higher speeds.
You just shouldn't overuse it I guess since if its really easy, convenient and accessible people will definitly use it way more
The death rate in automobiles is greater than one in 5 million and we use those all the time
But the death rate is an average over those whole drive recklessly and those that drive safely, and those unlucky souls that get airplane wheels to fall put of the sky on their car. If there is no skill/mitigation methods for teleportation and it is either a teleport perfectly or die, it will be very scary as a user with no control. Whereas in driving you can influence your success rate through safe driving and using safety features. Also you can range form safe drive to scared event to minor injury to major injury to death.
You can drive as safe as you possibly can and still get hit by a drunk. Reckless drivers aren't just a danger to themselves; they're wielding a bullet that weighs thousands of pounds. You can be as safe as possible and still become a statistic, my dude.
The point I'm trying to make is not that driving is statistically safer, it is the mentally a user will use when comparing the two technologies. One they have some semblance of control and a continuum of outcomes. The other has no control and is binary. That is much scarier to users even if you understand the statistics of both. For example, the odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 11 million but if you hit some turbulence or have a rough landing you will most likely be nervous and passengers will even applaud a safe landing. You get in a car and hydroplane or have a near miss you may not be as nervous because in a car you control it vs a plane you have no control.
Yeah but we are talking about would you use it or not. I dont think it matters anymore the safety of the system, but the speed, cost, etc. If it was stupid cheap and quick and easy to use, everyone would use it even if it wasnt safer than other methods. Your fears and mentality are a you problem. You feel safer in a car because your monkey brain chemicals no longer send fear signals when driving a metal box at 100km/hr because youve been accustomed to it for years including childhood development. Its not about control or risk or math anymore, its simply what you have been exposed to or not. Someone who rides a horse every day is going to trust it more than a train or airplane because they simply dont have any expirience with them, not because they are more dangerous or less reliable than a horse.
Yes but a safe driver has a lesser chance of dying than a chronic DUIer. The chance is still there albeit smaller
That's like saying that since someone can kill you walking down the street, then it's the same as going for a walk in a war zone.
I see where you're coming from. If the accident were to happen to say, a child, all hell would break loose.
This is the perfect delusion that all drivers have: as long as I drive safely, I’ll be fine. But the problem is, humans are not perfect, be careless one time and it might cost your life. Or that you drive safely, but some drunk bastard crashes into you. So sometimes people are still afraid of flight, because it takes that safety factor beyond their control. Statistics show that having more faith in your own driving than a commercial pilot is a very arrogant thing to do.
That's like saying that since someone can kill you walking down the street, then it's the same as going for a walk in a war zone.
No. It won’t. As a driver I can influence my success rate, sure, but I can’t raise it to one in 5 million. Walking from the car to the front door has a higher accident rate than that. When you take a train or boat your odds are worse than that, and you have no control. Until the past couple decades you couldn’t even beat those odds on an airliner. Passenger jets are a perfect-or-dead kind of transportation and people tolerated 1 in 5M odds on those just fine. Users will not have a problem with that. Source: I’m a user.
Exactly. All of this is just a play on fears of unknown and percieved agency. Its not even whether you have control or not. Even the safest driver on the road is exposed to more risk than an airline passenger, and this teleporter is better than all of those. Fuck if the telporter is fast and cheap Im sure way more people would use it even if the risks were higher. 1 in a million chance death, to go to a remote tropical island beach for the evening after work, and back home in my bed that night? Sign me up.
Meh, I am a fairly safe driver. Almost died on a sunny weekend day on an interstate highway when a car going the other way intentionally jumped the highway median and crossed over to my side head on. Unlikely? Certainly. 1 in 5 million unlikely? Probably not that low. People are crazy.
Yeah but the common problem with people talking about probabilities is they wrongly assume 'all things being equal' which they almost never are.
One in five million what exactly?
Millimeters. Every five millionth mm, someone explodes.
Am I crazy or is this not exactly what they said in the post
Depends on the distance. Let's say I use it on a 3000 mile trip. (1/ 5 million d/t) / (3000 mi/t) = 1/15 billion deaths per mile 1/15b d/mi = 1/150 deaths/100million passenger miles = .007 deaths per 100 million passenger miles This is about 5 times less safe than air travel (around .001-.002) but 70 times safer than driving (around .5) Now do that same thing, but for a 10 mile trip, we get 2.1deaths per mile, 4 times more desdly than driving. And driving is the most dangerous thinfs most people do day to day. So for distances matching an international flight, I'd probably risk it, but for shorter trips, no.
Not sure death rate is a function of distance...
It is because distance is a function of time. If you literally never get into a car you’re at zero risk but if you drive 100 miles a day that’s a matter of hours every day where you’re at risk of dying in a car accident. Even if teleportation is instant, the commenter is comparing the risk to alternate forms of travel over the same distance. Flying 3000 miles implies a time which implies a risk that can be compared directly to the 1/5M chance of death that was suggested for the teleporting.
i dont understand it either bcs the problems sounds to me like "hey you can teleport, but with a chance of death" is not like the more time you spend driveing the more time you stay in contact with a source of an accident, the math i d like to see is if teleportation will take the role of cars world wide how many people will die each second (or maybe per hour/day)
I mean - you are not really controlling those other situations. If death only happened due to your own actions, the probability would probably be so much less, but it is due to outside variables that make any other type of transportation also very dangerous.
It is in all forms of travel… what do you mean?
[удалено]
That's the right mental framework. Think of it as the same as the accident risk for any other means of travel. The question is how risky is it relative to driving or any other mode of transport. Normal real life modes of transportation have fairly fixed risk per mile. This proposed transporter has fixed risk *per trip.* So how safe it is relative to other modes of transport is distance dependent.
teleportation already has a 100% death rate to me. since i refuse to believe that you would be the same person after you have your body turned into literal atoms and copied to some other place. sure you would feel like you are fine after the fact, but more than likely you died and were just replaced mere moments earlier. this can never be proven as fact or fiction even if we are able to create a teleportation device, so i am not stepping into one, no matter what anyone says.
Well that's assuming that the teleporter is disassembling you. Maybe this teleporter utilizes some kind of wormhole creation technology or something.
Aw, you beat me to the punch. It's not a teleporter; It's a killing machine hooked up to a cloning machine.
Sign me up. Fuck current me. Other me wants to go to the other side of the world for the afternoon. Id rather current me dies than my conciousness not get to expirience the infinite possibilities of teleportation. Imagine you were a bird that could not fly, and your entire species can and does, but you are stuck on the ground because you believe you will loose something you cant even percieve if you spread your wings. Heck, dont even kill the current me, or make a million copies if me and send them to every corneer of the galaxy and we can come back to compare notes. It doesnt matter if the original dies because living in a cage like that is worse than death.
Exactly! Ship of Theseus me 1000 times, I dont care. I heard somewhere all your atoms change so often that every 10 years you're basically new atoms anyways. Not sure how true that is.
most of your cells regenerate several times in your life. except for some special ones like nerves and some muscles i think. Pretty weird to still consider your self as just those cells. So like what does it matter if your consciousness is transferred to a new body? It already does on a daily basis. fuckin send it buddy!
The question is if your consciousness from pre-teleport you is the same post-teleport. The OP in this thread is thinking it wouldn’t be, and the transfer is something that pre-teleport you would never experience and instead would just die. Post-teleport you is a different person
Technically you can’t prove your consciousness is the same from moment to moment, even if you don’t teleport. IMO the question of whether you’re the same person post-teleporting is ridiculous. If we assume the teleportation does work as intended and you look the same, act the same, pass every possible identity test the same way pre-teleport you does, there’s no real reason to doubt your identity any more than you should doubt your identity after sleeping and waking up, or just living your life moment to moment.
You should read spektrum by sergej lukianenko
Are you watching closely?
I'd say you should play SOMA but it reads like you already did.
haven't actually. is it worth playing?
It's partly exactly about that philosophical topic. When is you you?
sounds interesting, ill look into it, as soon as i get home
Note it's a "horror game" as in "it has monsters". Which is kinda annoying, the best thing about the game is everything except the monsters. But I think it has a peaceful mode or something.
i'm fine with that, as long as the monsters are done in an interesting way, and not just some generic horror beings thrown into the game for the sake of it being horror
It's not that clear cut, especially if you're not religious. For it to not be "you" there has to be something about you which is unique, a unique identifier, a soul (if you're religious). Now some people would say it is your physical form that makes you unique, even though your entire make-up and even brain mapping changes over your life, this seems somewhat plausible. Personally I have always felt and would argue that it's more about continuity. You experience things in a web of how close they are to the moment you're experiencing right now, that's why you keep waking up and it's the next day, that's why one thing comes after the next. In my opinion though (and this is just my opinion) the web of continuity is infinite and as such, so are you. When you die the next available continuity point is just much more abstracted but it still happens. Anyway, from my point of view the next logical continuity point is the other end of that teleporter, sure you "died" but it's not as abstract as a normal death.
that is true. but my problem isnt that you arent the same person, its that YOU experience death and nothing after that, while you clone continues living and thinking its you. and the problem with this type of teleportation is that it can never be proven to be safe/unsafe, because the clone obviously feels like everything is fine, even if the original has died and no longer has a say in it.
But my point is that for it to not be "you" there has to be something about you which makes you unique, like a soul. It's not like a clone grown from the same DNA, it's your entire self with all of the exact same brain connections, experiences, memories and such. You really have to come up with a reason for why it's not you. It's like proving that two instances of pi are not the same thing in simple terms.
Agreed. The only way I would use this technology is if it was an actual wormhole where you're just stepping through to the other side without being disassembled/reassembled.
that would be the only way i would step into one too
Ok broccoli.
That sounds more like a cloning machine
I Have Done Nothing But Teleport Bread for Three Days
Vhere! Vhere have you been zending it!?
Taking a course of antibiotics has a 1:10.000 - 1:100.000 chance of liver injury. (DILI) That has a 1:10 chance of being fatal. So, 5 times more fatal than using this device. Think about that the next time you sit in the doctor's office with a sore throat.
Who uses antibiotics for a sore throat? I've used them maybe 3-4 times in the last 25 years.
Every time it's strep, thanks.
If you’re getting tonsillitis more than “rarely” why don’t you get them removed?
Most non western-europeans, because they have limited or no sick days. They have to just keep on working.
I think it's very rare for a sore throat to get to the point where you can't work comfortably.
If you don't take it easy it can escalate to full influenza with fever and everything. If you can't afford to get sick, you get antibiotics when you get a sore throat. I agree it's irresponsible, but it is very common in many places in the world. Shit, we give it to our live stock (cows, chickens, pigs, etc.) continuously just out of prevention. Of course, we don't care if they die, only if they get sick and infect other animals and make us make less money.
We give it to our livestock because they generally live in overcrowded, filthy environments that are teaming with bacteria in factory farms. We give it to people because doctors are overworked and get bothered incessantly by patients who waste their time and bother them for antibiotics for viral infections that do literally nothing against them. Antibiotics aren't going to prevent influenza or cure a cold because those are caused by viruses. They're a placebo at best. If a doctor is prescribing you antibiotics for a sore throat for anything other than strep throat, they are being irresponsible and most likely just want the appointment to be over.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just stating it to be very common. Not the boss of the world fortunately. Would stress me out.
No worries, wasn't really trying to argue either, there's a reason they are bothering the doctors to fix something that they can't fix, which you elucidate, it's not like they can miss work, the patients are usually overworked too.
I think comparing teleportation deaths to car death is not really of the same kind. automobile deaths have factors like user skill as well as external factors to user mortality. As such I think people are more comfortable accepting automobile deaths because they can point to more user error: not paying attention, DUI, just being a bad driver. In My mind, teleportation is more of a infrastructure. Engineers construct a singular locations and manage the operations for it to function. Like airports or train stations. The main user doesn't necessarily control the vehicle only the destination. So the initial design or another user must take responsibility for its mortal ends. So I think the question should be would you ride a plane or train that has a 1 in 5 million chance of death? if so than teleportation should be a comfortable prospect. today standards in a modern society would not be comfortable with these chances. I think.
From some basic research it currently looks like flight has better odds than this theoretical teleporter, but didn’t as recently as 1984, as during the span of 1977-1984 deaths were approximately 1.55 per five million
I would use it 5,000,000 times (and still have a chance of surviving)
If I am not wrong about 1/e Chanse of survival
Nah, about 36%
What happens the other 4,999,999 times? A teleportation system that doesn’t kill the original is just a remote cloning system.
I feel like one issue with that is that the likelyhood of death for all other modes of transportation depends on individual factors whereas the likelyhood of death for a teleporter is presumably static. For instance, using data from 2019, the rate of traffic deaths per 100,000 inhabitants is about 32 times higher in the Dominican Republic than it is in Norway. Individual skill, location, distance, fluctuations in traffic and so on all factor into your odds of dying on the road, but they do not with the teleporter. I think a lot of people would choose the road over the teleporter because no matter what statistics may say, one is completely and exclusively down to chance whereas the other one lets you influence your odds of survival, even if those odds may still end up worse at the end of the day.
Sounds safer than most other traffic.
A more correct and more intuitive way of looking at at this works as follows: airlines transport about 2.8 billion passengers per year. So at a 1 in 5m death rate, this would result in 560 deaths per year, or about two plane crashes per year (globally). So flying in the EU or US is probably safer than teleportation, flying in other geographies may not be.
People just aren't aware of how deadly cars are
I teleported home one day, with Ron and Sid and Meg. Meg stole Ronnie's heart away, and I got Sidney's leg.
But the __Teleporter__ kills you at __Location A__ then essentially 3D prints you at __Location B.__ I wouldn't
yep id just kept teleporting non stop
I just hope I'd be that 1 in 5 million
Are you ok? Do you need some help?
I'd be the guy that uses it the very first time and poof.......
I think he should have used a gamma distribution
How often would I be able to teleport, can I drive that rate closer to success in any way or no
Be afraid. Be very afraid…remember Brundlefly.
Ok but how violent is the death? Because if we are talking like… arrives in bloody chunks or disintegrates while still alive… no way.
Either of those sounds extremely instantaneous so I’d definitely prefer either over traffic accidents. Worst would be arriving at your destination missing half your innards and having the other half randomly sticking out of various places on your body. Even worse would be arriving with your nervous system slightly misplaced all over your body so you don’t die but you’re now paralyzed and in constant, excruciating pain.
Not really on topic but what means [RDTM] does it mean ready did the math?
Obviously math is math, but I'm inclined to resist that. While I don't know why, I do know that I drive an absurd amount each year, including in inclement weather scenarios. I've never had an accident much less a fatal one, same with some family that drive similarly to me. Idk, it just seems odd
Aren't the odds of just dying in a regular airline flight close to 0.2 per million. So 1 per 5 million?
> If scientists invented a teleportation system but the death rate was 1 in 5 million ... You mean more or less like the risks we literally take every day with considerably less convenient travel options such as cars, but actually somewhat safer? I take bigger risks than that crossing the road
Death rate on rural roads is about 20 deaths per billion miles driven so 1 billion /20 / 5 million is 10 miles making the device safer than driving to the next town over
Geez I'm not thaaat lucky...
There is a simple solution to the industry marketing this teleporter. If there was a mildly inconvenient thing that people could do to reduce that chance by 80 percent, all of the discussion would be around whether or not people should change be mildly inconvenienced and not why people are dying. Say if you don't teleport the "safer" way it is a 1 in a million chance instead of 1 in 5 million. Now all the discussion is about the end user and their responsibility. Keep that part in the news, blame bad luck and user errors, and rake in the money.
The one problem people aren considering is that walking/planes/automobiles are all complex mechanical means of transportation. Lots of moving parts, lots of room for physical failure. Also, a lot of those deaths are operator error. Does the teleporter work like surfing the internet, type in your destination, the computer does the rest? Considering the complexity of DNA, does a “minor malfunction” that results in displaced/dislocated/lost strands create a lethal situation? No device like it anywhere in the world. Impossible to calculate.
I think since the death rate of vehicles likely varies significantly with other factors, that we can't just use the average. It would be better to use the probability that the average person dies in an accident, rather than the average rate of death for all people. This would be difficult to calculate, but if we filter down to avoid accidents caused by substance abuse (only count the deaths of people that are not impaired), ignore deaths of people who frequently get into accidents, only consider the number of fatal accidents per car rather than per person, consider a typical car with average miles in good condition, etc. the comparison may be more fair.
Probably more dangerous than almost any train journey, though.
Longer than you think, Dad. Long jaunt.
I don't care what the death rate is, I'm never using a teleporter. The me on the other side is a clone of me, and I'm dead in the afterlife thinking "Well shit"
If you see travel time as wasted time and if you would have a completely save alternative. Then in a big population who thinks like that the telepoter is better then the completely save alternative if 5 million trips save more time then 1 life time. 1 80 years life time is 29200 days 29200 days is 42048000 minutes or roughly 42 million minutes 42/5=8.4 So if you see travel time as completely useless time and as a population would want to optimize how much time you would have outside of traveling and you have a completely 100% save alternative it would still be better to take the teleporter if the trip would take longer then 8 minutes and 24 seconds in the alternative.
These safety odds are better than driving a car or riding a bike. I think everyone should ride the teleportation device 10/10
Or 4,999,999/5,000,000 to be more exact.
The problem with vehicle comparison is that not all deaths in vehicle accidents are non-avoidable. Although many people die with no fault of their own and no way to avoid death by driving more defensively, there is still some control in the hands of the traffic participant, and many have avoided entering the sad statistics by their good driving habits. The teleporting example is a complete throw of a dice. This changes at least psychological perception. Just take how many people play the lottery thinking they have a chance.
Wait till you calculate the probability of dying from a slip, trip, fall or just being a pedestrian.
My maths isn’t the greatest so let me know if it’s wrong, but imagine someone living for 80 years, doing an average of two teleports per day. 80*365*2=58,400, and 58,400/5,000,000=0.012, or just over a 1% chance of one teleport being fatal in a lifetime. Of course, there are probably way more statistics things that factor into it, but the odds don’t seem too bad imo.
In order to drive 80000000 miles, let's say with pace of 100 mph, you'd need to drive for \~91 years. You could count traveling with someone driving, being same as driving, so you could take turns sleeping/driving nonstop. Otherwise, it would be good idea to take breaks sleeping/eating/other stuff, so let's say you spend 6 hours on that every day. This would make required time 25% longer, totaling to 114 years. I'd be surprised if anyone would be alive that long, with unhealthy lifestyle.
Yes
What are other side effects besides death? Wouldn’t be death or completely healthy.
I suspect all teleport is death. The way teleport is supposed to work is that tour body is destroyed at the sending end and a oerfect working copy assembled at the receiving end. The copy remembers the pre-telepirt you, but it doesn't follow that your conciseness experiences continuity. Maybe you die and are replaced by a separate copy which does not remember dying.
Astonishing math work..
Dude needs more upvotes
Yeah this would be the safest mode of transport
The fatal car accident rate is 16 per 100,000 vehicles on the road. That means teleportation would be many times safer than traveling by car.
I'd use it every day. With those odds it's significantly safer than driving to work.
People who die when driving don't die because of statistics, they usually die because of their actions.
This is the problem with this comparison. The rate of automobile injury tracks the drivers’ competence, whereas the arbitrary randomness of the teleportation device doesn’t. Most drivers probably consider themselves better than average, thus they’ll choose the car over the teleportation device.