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.

RomeoStevens comments on Open thread, Jan. 12 - Jan. 18, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Gondolinian 12 January 2015 12:39AM

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

Comments (155)

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

Comment author: RomeoStevens 12 January 2015 10:01:20PM 2 points [-]

If they want to live forever the effective egoist still has linear utility WRT money until radical life extension and friendly AI research runs out of room for more funding.

Comment author: RowanE 12 January 2015 10:29:31PM 0 points [-]

If radical life extension eliminates biological ageing and thereby increases life expectancies by 1,000 years, scrounging together enough money to increase the chance it's accomplished in my lifetime by 0.1% is worth 1 year of life to me. That would take a phenomenal amount of money, and if I have to spend even two years working to get that money when I could otherwise support myself on passive income, I've taken a loss.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 12 January 2015 11:57:22PM 1 point [-]

The point is to live until the functional immortality date.

Comment author: RowanE 13 January 2015 09:43:36AM -1 points [-]

Well, yes, that's why I didn't compare it to other interventions I could make and say they're much better investments, because the obvious response would be to do both, and why I described the amount of life extension funding in terms that still make sense with reaching the immortality deadline in mind. Increasing the chance you live forever with personal donations to the relevant research groups has a very low expected value per amount of money spent.