You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

PhilGoetz comments on Rationalists don't care about the future - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: PhilGoetz 15 May 2011 07:48AM

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

Comments (143)

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

Comment author: PhilGoetz 17 May 2011 07:02:20AM 1 point [-]

BTW, genes are an example of an agent that arguably has a reversed time-discounting function. Genes "care" about their eventual, "equilibrium" level in the population. This is a tricky example, though, because genes only "care" about the future retrospectively; the more-numerous genes that "didn't care", disappeared. But the body as a whole can be seen as maximizing the proportion of the population that will contain its genes in the distant future. (Believing this is relevant to theories of aging that attempt to explain the Gompertz curve.)

Comment author: timtyler 17 May 2011 06:22:44PM 0 points [-]

Kinda - but genes are not in practice of looking a million years ahead - they are lucky if they can see or influence two generations worth ahead - so: instrumental discounting applies here too.