How You’re Most Likely To Die, According To Science

How You’re Most Likely To Die, According To Science

It’s a somber thought, but we’re all going to die at some point. However, our fears about how we’ll die don’t always line up with the reality most of us face. This video breaks down the real most common causes of death.

If you live in a Western nation, your two most likely causes of death are the common (though still awful) heart disease or cancer. This is a relatively new trend. As the video from Asap Science states, just 100 years ago, the two most common killers were tuberculosis and influenza.

Even among the less common causes of death, you’ll probably find some surprises. Alcoholism kills 80 times as many people as terrorist attacks in the U.S., and despite what you hear in presidential debates, the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorist attacks in the West are not of Islamic origin. A few of the stats in the video are U.S.-focused, but there are a lot of global facts mixed in.

It’s normal to be afraid of how and when you’re going to die, but hopefully this video sheds some light on your risk factors. If you want to live a long and healthy life, you probably don’t have to avoid shark-infested waters or worry about terrorists. Just try to keep your cholesterol low. It won’t make you immortal, but it can help.

How Will You Die? [Asap SCIENCE]


  • The article that this story links to is old, and the links contained in it, which should bring up the calculator no longer work.

  • Domestic terrorism directly killed 3158 US citizens in the US from 1995 to 2014.
    At least 94% were killed by Islamists.

    Implying that westerners are less at risk from death to Islamic domestic terrorism than non-Islamic domestic terrorism, is detestably dishonest.

    • The problem here is you have grossly misunderstood the concept of ‘domestic terrorism’ in your rush to judgement. Here’s a great breakdown of *all* domestic terrorism that has taken place in America and includes the period of time between 1995 – 2014. While it is true Islamic Terrorism has racked up incredibly significant numbers of victims and has indeed increased since 2001 (as it has worldwide), it’s also clear that religious terrorism *on American soil* is not the most common kind of terrorism that takes place *domestically* it just gets the most airtime, thus becomes the most well reported and well known. For example, the Beltway snipers are officially considered terrorists, as was the sniper recently in America who shot the police due to his act of terror. One does not need to be of middle eastern origin to be a terrorist, merely inflict ‘acts of terror’. Do you have a credible source for your 94% claim?

      • This isn’t about attack count it’s about kill count, you know it, I know it, everyone else knows it.

        ~2997 people died in 9/11.

        You can’t find ~2997 non-islamic terrorist kills in the West, so Islamic terrorism is the main contributor. You know this, I know this, everyone else knows this.

        Just. Be. Honest.

        • Saying ‘just be honest’ repeatedly doesn’t make you correct. Unfortunately you’ve got a drastic misunderstanding of how statistics work there, but you clearly have an ingrained disposition in yourself to believe this so educating won’t work 🙂 Have a good one.

          • Weaselsmurf, answer a direct question honestly:

            Does the 9/11 attack constitute more than half the fatality-count of domestic terrorism in The West?

          • That’s not even a question, factually it consists of nearly 3000 people dead. However does it constitute every single domestic terrorist attack? No it doesn’t. What you’re doing is cherrypicking a single event to fit into your narrative, while it’s a horrendous, exceedingly large numbered account, they’re basing this off number of attacks per capita (as they should) not off immediate victims per attack (which is statistically another issue altogether).

            But as they say when you reduce yourself to ad hominem attacks a.) You’ve already defeated yourself and b.) The conversation is done. Have a good one!

          • 1: This article is about your odds of dying, so fatalities are the relevant statistic, not number of attacks. Because of this, attacks which cause 100 fatalities are 100 times more relevant than an attack which causes a single fatality. You know this.

            2: I want each victim of every terrorist attack counted, that’s the opposite of cherry-picking.

            3: *YOU* claim that 9/11 would have counted just as much if only one person had died, and that’s a truly detestable insult to each and every victim.

            4: In light of your various situational adhominems and your disproportionate disregard for ~3000 victims and their loved-ones, I called you ‘weaselsmurf’ as an extremely mild rhetorical tactic intended to guilt you into a response. Any reader who believes I ceeded victory by doing so is welcome to believe so.

    • of those “3158 US citizens” killed from 1995 to 2014 nearly 3,000 were killed in one freak event. So your figure and your intention is a little devious. Terror begets terror: America used a false pretext to reign terror on iraqis in 2003 and set in motion the events that would lead to the creation of isis and its blowback on america, the west and the world. America, far from being an innocent and angelic victim, is one of the main incubators of terrorism. But some people prefer to live in a bubble of mainstream media propaganda.

      • 1: The discussion is about your odds of dying. Political events are moot.

        2: If you want to know my intention, and you aren’t psychic, *ask me* why I made the post.

        3: Presumably you think that the 171,000 victims of the Banqiao Dam collapse count towards dam fatality statistics in China. Presumably you think that the 4000+ victims of Union Carbide Bhopal count toward Indian chemical fatalities. So why don’t you think 3000 people killed in a US terrorist attack should count towards our assessment of the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack?

        • Hey guys, I’ve trimmed this discussion as it is not going anywhere useful and is really only tangentially related to the article at hand. Please end the discussion here.

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!