No I'm not. I'm teasing Fram for creating an illustrative case to undermine Carter which in fact would do Carter's work for him. But surely Fram's point was that this imagined situation is ridiculous?
You can't manipulate a priori probability this way. If an actuary tells you and five friends that, as a group, your various life expectancies sum to 180 years, you would not prolong your own life by killing your five friends. You'd just change the rules for the calculation, and the estimate would need to be redone.
In Carter's calculation, one of the vexed points is: Which lives count towards the total? When do we start counting entities and when do we stop counting entities? Some would argue that a near-extinction bottleneck merited the start of a new count, so that the survivors of the Framocaust would perhaps see themselves as having rather short future prospects. (Though they might argue that they were undoubtedly in the first 5% of the New Count humans, and so fend off Carter's calculations for a few generations.)

Grant Hutchison