= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Why I haven't signed up for cryonics - 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 (249)
I have a view on this that I didn't find by quickly skimming the replies here. Apologies if it's been hashed to death elsewhere.
I simply can't get the numbers to add up when it comes to cryonics.
Let's assume a probability of 1 of cryonics working and the resulting expected lifespan to be until the sun goes out. That would equal a net gain of around 4 billion years or so. Now, investing the same amount of money in life extension research and getting, say a 25% chance of gaining a modest increase in lifespan of 10 years for everyone would equal 70bn/4 = 17.5bn expected years total.
If you think (like I do) that even if cryonics end up working, there will probably be a hard limit significantly less than 4bn years(my uneducated guess is that it will be around the lifespan of a ponderosa pine, or 6000 years or so), or that cryonics have a probability of less than one, the figures only get worse.
Of course, there may be a lower chance of extending everyones life by even a little, but on the other hand, my grandfather has already gained a decade partly as a result of my investment in a cancer research startup some years back, so I'm not willing to lower those odds by enough to make cryonics come out on top :)
How do you invest $50,000 to get a 25% chance of increasing everyone's lifespan by 10 years? John Schloendorn himself couldn't do that on $50K.
Reviewing the numbers you made up for sanity is an important part of making decisions after making up numbers.
You're right. Those numbers weren't just slightly coloured by hindsight bias but thoroughly coated in several layers of metallic paint and polished. They need to be adjusted drastically down. The reasons I originally considered them to be reasonable are:
The field of cancer research seem to be a lot like software in the 80s in that our technical ability to produce new treatments is increasing faster than the actual number of treatments produced. This means that any money thrown at small groups of people with a garage and a good idea is almost certain to yield good results. (I still think this and am investing accordingly)
I have made one such investment which turned out to be a significant contribution in developing a treatment for prostate cancer that gives most patients about 10 extra years.
There are far too many similarities between cancer cells and ageing cells for me to readily accept that it is a coincidence. This means that investing in cancer research startups has the added bonus of a tiny but non-zero chance of someone solving the entire problem as a side effect.
In retrospect, I also went: "prostate cancer patients == many => everyone == many" (I know, scope insensitivity :( )
On the other hand, my numbers for cryonics were also absurdly optimistic, so I'm not yet convinced that the qualitative point I was trying (ineptly) to make is invalid. The point was: Even a large chance of extending one life by a lot should be outweighed by a smaller chance of extending a lot of lives by a little, especially if the difference in total expected number of years is significant.
Also: Thanks for the pushback. I am far too used to spending time with people who accept whatever I say at face value and the feeling I get on here of being the dumbest person in the room is very welcome.