= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on How Likely Is Cryonics To Work? - 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 (122)
Too high:
Far too low:
About right:
What if we add in "your ugh field around immediate paperwork is bigger than the one around distant death"? Speaking from an empirical sample of one, .03 is far too low in that case.
OK, I thought from how it was spoken about that the category was for an unknown error causing a problem after the fact.
If it's for the ugh field, it's too low, if it's for an undiscovered error causing problems, it's too high.
Do you have better numbers? Ideally with reasons why you think mine are too low or too high?
Other people have done it. You fill in blanks. It just seems too high.
It would be difficult to block someone with such a law because one could always be transported. Will Federal laws be passed in the US, and Canada? Probably not. US, Canada, and Anguilla? No chance.
What are the other options? Sure, if I had a wound to my stomach I might "feel anxiety" differently, or something.
Nuclear war would not kill everyone. Comet strike defenses are getting better and the risk is low. Nanotech...factory produced things will be more efficient than self-replicators, I do not expect self-replicators to be where investment is put. It is easier to break things than fix them, self replicators are breaking things not too hard to break, as they are practically alive.
Humans with no technology survived the ice age. Someone's surviving whatever we do in a bomb shelter with a million cans of tuna, or on Tasmania, or something.
Take thin slices, print it. Conceptually it's not hard, even if technologically impossible. It doesn't seem outlandish or as a thing in kind that must be invented, like nanotechnology is.
Things get cheap.
Weirdly specific, but you could be revived as well.
Just go slower, and run on a Pentium III at one second per decade or whatever.
Far too low:
I didn't look at actuarial tables, but head trauma is not a good thing, more than time is involved.
Much probability mass taken from "All people die" (you had it at .3, I have it about .01), but still more than your .2+.3. More like .8. Societies fail. They just do. That's what they do. If the society isn't basically stable, it will change until it eventually dies. The society will have institutions poorly designed for past circumstances (as overreactions to even older circumstances) persist and be less and less appropriate. The society will consume resources until they are gone. The society will have cooperative morals decay and become a mass of individuals. Societies...for these things death is natural more than it is for humans.
Not anymore. Societies fall, but they fall a fixed distance before they restructure and recover, and they start a little higher every year.
I look at the failed states index and it makes me pessimistic.
If you really want to get pessimistic, read Collapse, by Jared Diamond. It shows how a complex, apparently functioning society can totally fall apart in way less time than you might expect.
I read that book a while ago. My memory is that the societies he examined were in very fragile environments, much more fragile than most places people are.
He argues that how fragile an environment is, depends on the demands placed on it by it inhabitants. The Mayan Yucatan, Haiti, and Rwanda were not particularly fragile, but every place has a limit.
You're right; I was just remembering the easter island and greenland bits.
Many of those failed states are states which have been failed for quite a long time. It is extremely rare for a state to be in good shape and then get to very bad shape.
It's not the ones at the bottom I'm concerned with.
Many of the ones rated "Moderate" don't seem stable for our purposes here, which are slightly different than the list's compilers'. We want to see countries that are unlikely to have a sufficiently bad shock over the next century and a half or so, the index is concerned with related but different things including refugees and factionalization of elites.
A good example of what I'm talking about is Kuwait. As far as I can tell it deserves its place in the same category as the United States, near the bottom of it with the US near the top. But its geographical position makes it extremely unreliable as a possibly stable place for the next few centuries.