= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dagon comments on Life insurance for Cryonics, how many years? - 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 (12)
Maybe the "separately" should be removed from my comment. Each risk should be considered, whether together or separately. It's not an either/or choice, it's a both are real situation.
Yes, that set of choices is irrational. If a 1% chance of irreversible death is worth more than $1000 for you to prevent, that's true regardless of your base chance.
Why does that make it irrational? Why is it irrational that the amount of risk you are already facing can and should affect the amount you are willing to pay to avoid further risk?
Or to put it in more formal terms, why is it irrational to have a non-linear utility function?