= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jayson_Virissimo comments on Against Cryonics & For Cost-Effective Charity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (180)
Incidentally, heart transplants and cryonics both cost about the same amount of money... does the "it's selfish" argument also apply to getting a heart transplant?
A heart transplant has a much higher expected utility than cryonics. Could that be a major cause of the negative response?
Disagree. A heart transplant that adds a few decades is less valuable than a cryopreservation that adds a few millennia.
Also, heart transplants are a congestion resource whereas cryonics is a scale resource.
So what? The value of winning the lottery is much higher than working for the next five years, but that doesn't mean it has a higher expected utility.
The expected value of an act is the sum of the products (utilities x probabilities).
Unless you think a heart transplant is just as probable to work as cryonics, then you must consider more than simply the value of each act.
To offset a difference in living 100 times as much longer (even not accounting for other utilities like quality of life), it takes 100 times the probability. I don't think cryonics is 100 times less likely to work than a heart transplant.