army1987 comments on The Apocalypse Bet - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 09 August 2007 05:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (51)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: timtyler 05 November 2011 12:36:15PM *  0 points [-]

Extinction in 10 or 20 years would be regarded as being roughly equally bad - since these are small figures - smaller than the lifespan of humans and within their planning horizon. So an evolved creature acting in their genetic self-interest can be expected to regard both outcomes as being roughly equally bad.

In the case of 10 years and universal heat death, most evolved creatures would strongly prefer to avoid immediate extinction, since universal heat death is far outside both their experience and their planning horizon. As a bonus, there may be ways of avoiding the heat death - by creating large new low-entropy regions by using known inflationary processes.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 August 2013 10:50:48AM 0 points [-]

Extinction in 10 or 20 years would be regarded as being roughly equally bad - since these are small figures smaller than the lifespan of humans and within their planning horizon. So an evolved creature acting in their genetic self-interest can be expected to regard both outcomes as being roughly equally bad.

People don't act in their genetic self-interest alone, and myself, I'd very much rather die childless in 20 years than die childless in 10 years.