Bindbreaker comments on Normal Cryonics - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 January 2010 07:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (930)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Bindbreaker 19 January 2010 10:47:08PM *  -1 points [-]

Suppose your child dies. Afterward, everyone alive at the time of an unFriendly intelligence explosion plus the tiny handful signed up for cryonics (including your child), also dies. Would you say in retrospect that you'd been a bad parent, or would you plead that, in retrospect, you made the best possible decision given the information that you had?

I, personally, will allocate any resources that I would otherwise use for cryonics to the prevention of existential risks.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 January 2010 11:12:49PM *  9 points [-]

I have no child; this is not coincidence. If I did have a kid you can damn well better believe that kid would be signed up for cryonics or I wouldn't be able to sleep.

I, personally, will allocate any resources that I would otherwise use for cryonics to the prevention of existential risks.

I'll accept that excuse for your not being signed up yourself - though I'm rather skeptical until I see the donation receipt. I will not accept that excuse for your child not being signed up. I'll accept it as an excuse for not having a child, but not as an excuse for having a child and then not signing them up for cryonics. Take it out of the movie budget, not the existential risks budget.

Comment author: Bindbreaker 20 January 2010 12:08:35AM 2 points [-]

I don't believe in excuses, I believe that signing up for cryonics is less rational than donating to prevent existential risks. For somewhat related reasons, I do not intend to have children.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 January 2010 12:30:57AM 4 points [-]

Sounds like you could be in a consistent state of heroism, then. May I ask to which existential risk(s) you are currently donating?

Comment author: Bindbreaker 20 January 2010 12:44:08AM *  1 point [-]

I'm in the "amassing resources" phase at present. Part of the reason I'm on this site is to try and find out what organizations are worth donating to.

I am in no way a hero. I'm just a guy who did the math, and at least part of my motivation is selfish anyway.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 January 2010 12:48:43AM 15 points [-]

I strongly advise you to immediately start donating something to somewhere, even if it's $10/year to Methuselah. If there's one thing you learn working in the nonprofit world, it's that people who donated last year are likely to also donate this year, and people who last year planned to donate "next year" will this year be planning to donate "next year".

Comment author: alyssavance 20 January 2010 06:51:22AM 7 points [-]

Upon hearing this advice, I just donated $10 to SIAI, even though I consider this amount totally insignificant relative to my expected future donations. I will upvote anyone who does the same for any transhumanist charity.

Comment author: Liron 21 January 2010 04:07:24AM 1 point [-]

Way to turn correlation-causality correlation into causality

Comment author: GuySrinivasan 20 January 2010 08:10:13AM 3 points [-]

Do you have an estimate of how much a new donor to SIAI is worth above and beyond their initial donation? How about given that I ask them to donate with money they were about to repay me anyway?

If it's significant it could be well worth the social capital to spread your own donations among non-donor friends.

Comment author: Bindbreaker 20 January 2010 01:03:53AM 1 point [-]

I plan to donate once I have X dollars of nonessential income, and yes, I have a specific value for X.

Comment author: gwern 20 January 2010 01:44:21AM 9 points [-]

Did your calculations for X take into account discounting at 0-10%? Money for research years from now does much less good than money now.

Comment author: Bindbreaker 20 January 2010 02:53:32AM *  1 point [-]

No-- thanks for the tip! I will adjust my calculations accordingly.

Comment author: bgrah449 20 January 2010 01:45:31AM 0 points [-]

Or the cost of the research being delayed.

Comment author: gwern 20 January 2010 01:48:37AM 0 points [-]

I figured that was covered by 'much less good'; there are a lot of costs to delaying, if we wanted to enumerate them - risks of good charities going under, inflation and catastrophic economic events gnawing away at one's stored value, the ever-present existential risks each year, etc.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 January 2010 04:04:56AM 7 points [-]

Antiakrasia, future-self-influencing recommendation: if you can afford $10/year today, make sure your current level of giving is not zero.