= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hairyfigment comments on I - 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 (38)
Agree about the sex. (Or, at least, I know I ought to.)
Only if you're a static individual for which "death" is a meaningful concept.
Does some non-competitive way of allocating resources really sound better? What you're saying sounds analogous to 18th-century protectionism. If you create an open market, some jobs will be lost, but everybody will be better off. Likewise, if you allocate resources to processes that are useful, it will be a better world than if someone gets arbitrary amounts of resources because their great-grandparents owned them.
Also remember that "I" has a physical body that is vast, with truly massive energy requirements by the standard of the day. Sort of like if you kept Switzerland as your summer home.
For some definitions of utility, sure. Not by I's measure.
Though as you point out, the measure from the story makes a lot more sense to everyone else in the society and perhaps even to the post-unification version(s) of I.