Beta 006: Lifespan

[Aclion]

I think these should affect lifespan:
Weather
Safety
Low-Crime
Low-Death Rate
Health
Cheerfulness(does it? Cheerful prevents suicides)
Healthcare
HDI
Income Of Poor
Environmental Beauty(It's more like water and air quality)
Religiousness(However secular doesn't mean unhappy. Just a plus in religiousness, no minus on secularism)
Low Obesity

I believe death rate is just an inverse of lifespan already.

[Merconitonitopia]

I think these should affect lifespan:
Weather
Safety
Low-Crime
Low-Death Rate
Health
Cheerfulness(does it? Cheerful prevents suicides)
Healthcare
HDI
Income Of Poor
Environmental Beauty(It's more like water and air quality)
Religiousness(However secular doesn't mean unhappy. Just a plus in religiousness, no minus on secularism)
Low Obesity

Lifespan and death rate and derived from the same value and have a correlation of -1. If they weren't the two statistics would be contradictory and create a logical paradox.

Most of these either already relate to lifespan, directly or indirectly, or are simply irrelevant.

HDI is a derivative statistic that measures the nation's level of development. It would be absurd if HDI affected other stats relating to development. This would also create a feedback loop that would shoot both of those stats to the highest number the system can handle, as lifespan would increase HDI would increase lifespan, etc.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The factors you mention are pretty much all considered already. What's being proposed here is rebalancing, to make different factors count for more or less.

Notably right now, envirommental spending and environmental quality are cumulatively more important than health spending and health quality, and that was the driver behind my review. Violet kindly implemented suggested rebalancing in this beta, and hopefully when she has time she'll send this one live.

[Flanderlion]

Why is economic strength's effect on this increased? I would have thought it would be minor - especially with nations based around slave labour etc. - having a strong economy. I think this is the one beta I don't really like, (the other 5 on the beta page improve my stats, seem sensible and work).

I go from 23 years old, to 65, despite having my safety and environment in bottom 1% of the world, health in bottom 5%, HDI in bottom 15%, death rate in top 0.3%, disappearance making up 94.4% of my deaths, having capital punishment, practising slavery etc. etc. We execute the elderly at 65, so the average must be lower than that. Despite putting the entire healthcare budget into my leader, Dale Flanderlion, there is no way his age over 65 would be enough to balance out every other death that must occur before 65.

[Polyspectra]

Neat, my lifespans would go up by over a year, and my death rate would drop multiple points. Also, my HDI would go up. I like this.

[Xoriet]

I did the beta test and all I can do is mourn my stats.

Edit: Owait I was seeing all of them. This one isn’t so bad.

[Depackya]

Once again, I've found a long-dead forum post.

If this test were to be implemented, I'd see my lifespan avg. go from 26 yrs to 69. I hope this hasn't been forgotten about.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Yep, it's been a long road. Over a year now public, and developed by myself some time before that.

Unfortunately this is basically down to the tech team to implement, so we just have to play the waiting game. We've got a list backstage of jobs for the team, but as we're not really in a position to demand anything (as we work for them, rather than them for us) we basically just need to be patient.

Glad to see that players are still waiting for this to happen though, as it might act as a reminder that this is something needed.

[Stormcalling]

Shouldn't scientific advancement modulate the income-dependent effects on lifespan? A highly scientifically advanced nation would have better treatments to spend its income on.

EDIT: In very backwards nations, rich people might even use their money in expensive ways that damage their health, like milk-bathing (probably harmless, but udderly wasteful) or experimenting with mercury (both expensive and disastrous) in pursuit of longevity. I believe those are historically valid examples of how scientific progress has fixed the application of economic strength to the promotion of health.

[Bears Armed]

<usual grumbles about this ignoring the possibility of non-government spending on health, and ignoring the question of whether a nation has such widespread prosperity that major spending on welfare simply isn't needed...>

[Land Without Shrimp]

<usual grumbles about this ignoring the possibility of non-government spending on health, and ignoring the question of whether a nation has such widespread prosperity that major spending on welfare simply isn't needed...>

Shouldn't scientific advancement modulate the income-dependent effects on lifespan? A highly scientifically advanced nation would have better treatments to spend its income on.

EDIT: In very backwards nations, rich people might even use their money in expensive ways that damage their health, like milk-bathing (probably harmless, but udderly wasteful) or experimenting with mercury (both expensive and disastrous) in pursuit of longevity. I believe those are historically valid examples of how scientific progress has fixed the application of economic strength to the promotion of health.

Heartily agree with both of you. (And yes, I am slightly bitter than the beta is showing my lifespan would drop from 91 to 53. Why do you ask??)

To have a prosperous, modern country with a lifespan in the 50s? This doesn't pass the eye test.

[Depackya]

(And yes, I am slightly bitter than the beta is showing my lifespan would drop from 91 to 53. Why do you ask??)

To have a prosperous, modern country with a lifespan in the 50s? This doesn't pass the eye test.

I mean, the average health of your populace currently sits at 0.40 (which is somehow even lower than my own), so I'd imagine that this would have a major impact on your beta-estimate lifespan.

[Stormcalling]

What's the reasoning behind corruption's impact on lifespan being reduced?

What is the reasoning behind corruption's impact on lifespan?

The following is speculation:
I can imagine that extremely high corruption might cause an increase in disappearance rates regardless of national law whereas extremely low corruption could have very competent government officials occasionally saving a life. Corruption as such does seem like it would be only a small effect of itself. Does corruption modulate the efficiency with which spending is applied through health and welfare to the lifespan stat? For the larger impact from corruption that I imagine would not be of corruption itself, but of how corruption modulates the efficiency of health and welfare spending, and indeed the efficiency of all spending. (I can imagine that industry might be the least affected in this respect; "the industry department is bought and sold" does still sound like a wretched thing to say of a government, but inasmuch as a bribe is an inducement to do something, a flow of bribes across the boundary between economic actors and bureaucrats seems like it might conceivably yield back some of its wastage in productivity.) Thus corruption seems like (save for the factor occurring of itself at extreme values) something that would rather than applying directly serve as a smooth modulating function to the efficacy of spending with low corruption yielding .

<usual grumbles about this ignoring the possibility of non-government spending on health, and ignoring the question of whether a nation has such widespread prosperity that major spending on welfare simply isn't needed...>

Increasing the lifespan effect from economic strength would help acknowledge the possibility of non-government spending on health. Increasing the effect from poor income would even help model that major spending on welfare is less needed, since if a nation really has widespread prosperity its average income of the poor will also be high. More policies than just welfare increase the income of the poor in the game.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It's not that corruption won't still worsen health, rather that it has a mildly disproportionate effect right now.

None of the modifiers are changing direction here, they're just being shifted in scale. Basically, the revision says that it ought to be that the most important thing for determining average lifespan is the health of the population, whereas right now that only matters a little, whereas quality of the environment is much more important, as is level of corruption.

There's no disagreement here that corruption should worsen health, or that spending to reduce corruption should improve it. It's just that health quality should be more important to health, and health spending should have more direct impact on health.

Anyway, as I say it's all pretty academic. The limiting step here is not the consultation, it's the coding time of the tech team. This one's been stacked in the queue for a long time now, and we can't really effect any change on that waiting list.

[Land Without Shrimp]

(And yes, I am slightly bitter than the beta is showing my lifespan would drop from 91 to 53. Why do you ask??)

To have a prosperous, modern country with a lifespan in the 50s? This doesn't pass the eye test.

I mean, the average health of your populace currently sits at 0.40 (which is somehow even lower than my own), so I'd imagine that this would have a major impact on your beta-estimate lifespan.

Fair point! I do understand that. One of my main gripes with the stats is how Health is calculated, as I still am a bit confused by how I have that low of a score, considering other stats. Very frustrating, but maybe someday I will get it raised again. Health is one stat I have found it almost impossible to raise, once it's that low. It totally does make sense that Health is a major influence on the Lifespan stat though. I'd forgotten about that.

[9003]

If the elderly are killed off the issue is because there worthless to society would not than the "elderly" just become the oldest generation? Presumably getting sick and weak from what ever kills them and thus as a nation you would still want to get ride of them to stop paying?

[Alterrum]

<usual grumbles about this ignoring the possibility of non-government spending on health, and ignoring the question of whether a nation has such widespread prosperity that major spending on welfare simply isn't needed...>

I second that. Especially welfare spending. Looking at the list of countries by life expectancy on Wikipedia, the top 5 (Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia and Spain) all have relatively low government spending on welfare and healthcare (though all have universal coverage)[]. Meanwhile, the US has the 3rd highest per-capita government spending on healthcare, while coming a distant 31st on the Wikipedia list.

[Despoticania]

Technological advancement should also play a role. All those futuristic prosthetics, stem cell therapies and genetic engineering projects I've researched should have an impact on the lifespan of my citizens...

[Scardinius]

Seems like a good change. Average income does have a pivotal role in decided health factors and in turn lifespan. I do think technological advancement should have some part to play in determining the number as well. Increased technology should lead to increased methods of treating medical issues

[Complete Garbage]

Very unfortunate 155% increase over here, from 28 to over 70. Trying to be as awful as possible just doesn't work out anymore, I guess.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Very unfortunate 155% increase over here, from 28 to over 70. Trying to be as awful as possible just doesn't work out anymore, I guess.

A similar thing happens to my nation, which is a shame as I do treasure my awful lifespan rating. However, we have to take one for the team in favour of a more accurate simulation.

Technological advancement should also play a role. All those futuristic prosthetics, stem cell therapies and genetic engineering projects I've researched should have an impact on the lifespan of my citizens...

Not a bad point. Will have to check if that makes a difference in the current calculation. I'm not sure its absolutely needed though, as most options that code for a boost to health-related technologies also give a boost to backstage health stats, and thus will already be having their relative effect on extending lifespan enhanced by this beta. Its a hard thing to explain without showing you the numbers, but basically all the decisions that promote technology that help health will have a greater positive effect on lifespan than before, and that change will also apply for retroactive decisions.

[Antityranicals]

<usual grumbles about this ignoring the possibility of non-government spending on health, and ignoring the question of whether a nation has such widespread prosperity that major spending on welfare simply isn't needed...>

I second that. Especially welfare spending. Looking at the list of countries by life expectancy on Wikipedia, the top 5 (Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia and Spain) all have relatively low government spending on welfare and healthcare (though all have universal coverage)[]. Meanwhile, the US has the 3rd highest per-capita government spending on healthcare, while coming a distant 31st on the Wikipedia list.

Definitely true. The fact that my nation doesn't have government sponsored healthcare or welfare is causing my already abysmal life expectancy to drop even more, never mind the fact that my citizens average a 187,000 income, more than enough for them to pay for their own healthcare...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I second that. Especially welfare spending. Looking at the list of countries by life expectancy on Wikipedia, the top 5 (Japan, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia and Spain) all have relatively low government spending on welfare and healthcare (though all have universal coverage)[]. Meanwhile, the US has the 3rd highest per-capita government spending on healthcare, while coming a distant 31st on the Wikipedia list.

Definitely true. The fact that my nation doesn't have government sponsored healthcare or welfare is causing my already abysmal life expectancy to drop even more, never mind the fact that my citizens average a 187,000 income, more than enough for them to pay for their own healthcare...

That is something the beta partially fixes, as it now gives some benefit to health based on economic strength, which wasn't previously considered.

The simulation not covering private healthcare is definitely a deficit though, and the best way to fix that may be to write an issue that talks about private healthcare specifically. We can code health boosts separate from health spending, so its entirely possible for the simulation to include such things -- it just doesn't explicitly do so at present because no issue addresses that.

[Lillorainen]

Very unfortunate 155% increase over here, from 28 to over 70. Trying to be as awful as possible just doesn't work out anymore, I guess.

A similar thing happens to my nation, which is a shame as I do treasure my awful lifespan rating. However, we have to take one for the team in favour of a more accurate simulation.

Technological advancement should also play a role. All those futuristic prosthetics, stem cell therapies and genetic engineering projects I've researched should have an impact on the lifespan of my citizens...

Not a bad point. Will have to check if that makes a difference in the current calculation. I'm not sure its absolutely needed though, as most options that code for a boost to health-related technologies also give a boost to backstage health stats, and thus will already be having their relative effect on extending lifespan enhanced by this beta. Its a hard thing to explain without showing you the numbers, but basically all the decisions that promote technology that help health will have a greater positive effect on lifespan than before, and that change will also apply for retroactive decisions.

My nation's lifespan would rise from 41 to 65 years, if this change was implemented right in this moment, and I'm quite in favor of this - I always found it unrealistic, that in a nation like Lillorainen, where public healthcare and welfare are a huge thing, the crime rate is at a basically-nonexistent level, and basically nobody lives below the poverty line (with the poorest 10% still earning ~130,000 Marks a year), the life expectancy is lower than in RL Sierra Leone. Even with Lillos swearing like old sailors, having to cross the entire country to find a spot of untouched nature, and preparing cash for a 'service charge' when meeting officers, 41 years is ridiculously low, especially with Lillorainen's level of scientific advancement.
While I don't use NS stats for RP, I like collecting badges, so I think, my death rate decreasing by 73% isn't exactly a bad thing.

[Bears Armed]

My nation's lifespan would rise from 41 to 65 years, if this change was implemented right in this moment, and I'm quite in favor of this - I always found it unrealistic, that in a nation like Lillorainen, where public healthcare and welfare are a huge thing, the crime rate is at a basically-nonexistent level, and basically nobody lives below the poverty line (with the poorest 10% still earning ~130,000 Marks a year), the life expectancy is lower than in RL Sierra Leone. Even with Lillos swearing like old sailors, having to cross the entire country to find a spot of untouched nature, and preparing cash for a 'service charge' when meeting officers, 41 years is ridiculously low, especially with Lillorainen's level of scientific advancement.

Maybe that official 'death rate' for your nation actually covers up a rather high, but not officially acknowledged, rate of emigration to nations with better environments & less corruption?