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.

Vladimir_Nesov comments on 2013 Census/Survey: call for changes and additions - Less Wrong Discussion

27 Post author: Yvain 05 November 2013 03:10AM

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

Comments (154)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 05 November 2013 10:25:49AM *  15 points [-]

Add a question about cryonics to distinguish technical feasibility estimate from total probability estimate (the current P(Cryonics) question). This distinction is important, as the results of past surveys are sometimes misleadingly cited as talking about technical feasibility. Something like this could work:

P(Cryonics | No external defeaters)
What is the probability that at some future time, it will become technically feasible to successfully restore to life an average person cryonically frozen today, conditional on no global catastrophe and on the storage facility remaining functional (in some form)?

(I replaced "will be restored" with "feasible", since I suspect it might be morally suboptimal to restore frozen humans as opposed to doing something else, which is a factor unrelated to technical feasibility. The "in some form" is intended to address hypothetical change in form of storage, such as plastination or uploading, taking place before the "restore to life" point.)

Comment author: [deleted] 06 November 2013 01:57:20PM 2 points [-]

Would a future where it would be possible to restore a cryo patient but it'd cost the equivalent of one billion present-day dollars per patient count?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 November 2013 04:53:39PM *  0 points [-]

I think it should count for the purposes of this question (which is about technology, not values/motivation, and reasonableness of a cost depends on values). But since the question is about what happens eventually in the hypothetical where we don't ever run out of time, I guess eventually the cost will become reasonable (in some sense).

Comment author: [deleted] 11 November 2013 06:57:40PM -1 points [-]

But since the question is about what happens eventually in the hypothetical where we don't ever run out of time, I guess eventually the cost will become reasonable (in some sense).

Are assuming that the economy will grow forever, so that one billion present-day dollars will eventually become an arbitrarily small fraction of the economy? Unless we colonize other planets within a very few centuries, I don't think that's possible.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 17 November 2013 04:36:47PM *  0 points [-]

(I left a comment on a new version of the question.)