= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lsparrish 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)
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.