= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - 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 (694)
The "Anti-Agathics" question is ambiguous:
Two possible meanings (which, at least for me, would result in very different numbers):
Given a randomly selected person living at this moment, what is the probability that they will reach an age of one thousand years?
What is the probability that at least one person living at this moment will reach an age of one thousand years?
I believe the 2nd one is intended, though I agree with you that switching to something like "at least one" would make it unambiguous.
I'm ready to hit the "submit" button as soon as Yvain confirms (or denies) this...
Oh, dear. I assumed he meant the first one.
Another ambiguity: Does the anti-agathics mean 1000 consecutive years, or does it include successful cryonics as a special case?
This question also heavily depends on the irrelevant fact of whether FAI should keep variants of original individuals, or there is something better that it should therefore do instead. In 1000 years, it's FAI or bust, so this directly controls the answer. But presumably motivation for this question is "Will the future be good in this here sense?", while the estimate is lower if the future can be even better...
Assume 1000 animated years. :)
That's what I figured out.
I'd be interested to know what proportion gave an estimate for 1000 year lifespans which is at least as high as their estimate for revival from cryonics.
I suppose it's possible that suspended animation is incompatible with great longevity for those alive now, but it's hard to think of a mechanism. Perhaps genetic modification is required for longevity, and the tech for revival can't simulate that.
Hm. This was my position before, and apparently I forgot about it when assigning my probability for the anti-aging question. Oops.
Hypothetical: if that were the case, would it be better not to thaw out cryonics patients as soon as it becomes possible to, in the hopes that the longevity problem would be solved in the future?
I suppose it depends on how likely rejuvenation is to be solved. If it's looking unsolvable, then reviving the person asap makes sense-- there's probably less culture shock in dealing with a less distant future.