Assuming that this is mostly about persuading him to save himself by participating in cryonics (is that "the cause" for which he might be "an asset"?):

Your father may be fortunate to have so many informed people trying to change his mind about this. Not one person in a million has that.

He's also already scientifically informed to a rare degree - relative to the average person - so it's not as if he needs to hear arguments about nanobots and so forth.

So this has nothing to do with science, it's about sensibility and philosophy of life.

Many middle-aged people have seen most of their dreams crushed by life. They will also be somewhere along the path of physical decline leading to death, despite their best efforts. All this has a way of hollowing out a person, and making the individual life appear futile.

Items 1 and 2 on your father's list are the sort of consolations which may prove appealing to an intellectual, scientifically literate atheist, when contemplating possible attitudes towards life. Many such people, having faced some mix of success and failure in life, and looking ahead to personal oblivion (or, as they may see it, the great unknown of death), will find it a relief to abandon hope, and to broaden their awareness beyond their private desires, to the sweep of history or the vastness of the universe.

This impersonal perspective may function as a source of calm and lucidity, and to have you urging them to abandon their resignation and grasp for more life may seem like someone asking them to rush back into the cage of self-involved personal desire and occlude their hard-won awareness of reality in favor of optimistic delusion.

Also, they may simply find life boring or wearisome. Parents may endure mostly for the sake of their children, long past the age when the child supposedly grows up and leaves home. There may be far less joie de vivre there than a younger person could imagine; they may simply be going through the motions of life, having established some routine that leaves them as much space as possible after the turmoil of a youth in which they first came into bruising contact with the demands and limitations of life; and they may be kept alive more by habit than by the desire to live.

I know nothing about your father, so all that is just meant to suggest possibilities. I'll mention one other factor, which is the story a person tells themselves about their own destiny. One person's power is so limited, that simply choosing the broad direction of one's own life is often a struggle and an accomplishment; I would even say it's rare for a person to understand what their own life is about, and what's going on in it, in a more than superficial way. A phase of life is usually understood afterwards, if at all. The powerlessness of the human individual, the sense that one's time is running out, the impositions of the external world, all of this combines with everything I mentioned earlier to favor either passivity (stop trying, roll with the punches) or stubbornness, including intellectual stubbornness (at least I can live and think as I've already decided; at least I have that freedom and that power).

In persuading him to consider cryonics as a worthy activity, I would wager that something like all that is really what you have to deal with - though of course he also has a point when he asks whether making a copy is the same thing as surviving. I am young enough, and my estimation of the rate of change is rapid enough, that I mostly think in terms of rejuvenation, rather than cryonic suspension, as my path to an open future. It remains to be seen if I will ever bother making arrangements to be frozen.

Anyway, I would suggest two practical steps. One is to think together about the logistics, financial and otherwise, that would be required if he was to sign up for cryonics. How much would it cost, is there an opportunity cost, what would the physical process be if he died now and was shipped off to suspension. The point of such discussion is to explore what difference it would make to his existing life to take this step.

The other is to think about the further future if you both were to live to see it. Perhaps it's unfortunate that we don't have a Star Trek-like TV series in which the spacefaring 22nd century is full of youthful survivors from the 20th century who happened to be last until the age of advanced nanobiotechnology; it would encourage more people to take the future personally. Anyway, the key is to try to be realistic. Don't imagine the future to be some sort of wish-fulfilment video game; try to think of it as history that hasn't happened yet. On the day-to-day level, life is full of repetition, but in modern times, even just on a scale of decades, we also see catastrophe and transformation. Try to think of the future as a series of crises and triumphs continuous with the historical stages we already have behind us, and which you might manage to personally live through. This is a way to tap into the belated wisdom and sense of reality which comes from having lived a few decades as an adult, without entirely easing back into the spectator's armchair of death.

I can't tell from your post if he's actually dying right now, or if it's just that he's older than you and so notionally closer to death. This line of thought, about staying in the game of life for a few more decades, is more suited to awakening someone's sense of personal agency with respect to the future. If he's dying right now, then it probably does come down to a debate about personal identity.

The idea that you are alive “now” but will be dead “later” is irrational. Time is just a persistent illusion according to relativistic physics. You are alive and dead, period. A little knowledge is a dangerous etcetera. For one, it's like saying that relativistic spacetime proves New York isn't east of LA, but instead there are NY and LA, period. For another, if he really believed this then he wouldn't be able to function in society or make any plans at all.

Ditto a meat replica But aren't you always a meat replica of any past version of you? If he feels this way then he has to bite the bullet and recommend you quit your job, because you're working hard but it's only a meat replica that will recieve the pay for it.

Many worlds It's not making "another one", it's "A lot more". "Not many" + "A lot more" = "A little more than that". He's making Zeno's mistake here, thinking that just because there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1 you can't get to one, and it's meaningless to say that 10>1 because that's just 9 + infinity and you can't add to infinity.

Now, how does he donate? Does he give a good amount to actually useful charities (ie Villiage Reach, NTD treatments, etc) and you're trying to shift him over to SIAI and other such high risk charities? That would be pretty tricky as it's hard to get a grip on the actual value of SIAI donation. E=(A Lot times very small delta p) per dollar isn't super convincing sell to me when compared with E=(1/7 years of schooling + 1/10 years of healthy life) per dollar. I am not signed up for cryonics, mostly because my nation has no cryogenic facilities and therefore I don't think my brain would fare too well prior to vitrification. However, I would sign up if there was a nearby storage facility, especially since I have no current use for the death part of my Death, Terminal Disease and Permanent Disability insurance.

What I think could be useful is explaining cryonics as an extension of acceptable practices. He'd probably go under anaesthesia for life saving healthcare, and would probably approve of someone being put in a medically induced coma (I think it's generally to keep them stable before surgery but IANAD so do your research first). Explain Cryogenics as effectively a way of sustaining an effectively continuous life to the point where it can be treated and hopefully given a better chance at longevity.

The "it's okay to kill copies" thing has never made any sense to me either. The explanation that often accompanies it is "well they won't remember being tortured", but that's the exact same scenario for ALL of us after we die, so why are copies an exception to this?

Would you willingly submit yourself to torture for the benefit of some abstract, "extra" version of you? Really? Make a deal with a friend to pay you $100 for every hour of waterboarding you subject yourself to. See how long this seems like a good idea.

There's a related concept in the stage production Urinetown, where the draconian controls of the police state turn out to have been necessary all along

As a musical, Urinetown is okay, but its premise does not make sense. They have somehow managed, in spite of the water shortage and the wherewithal to institute massive societal change to manage it, to continue using restroom facilities that cost water, and they only don't all die because they charge money to use those facilities, as though this will affect how much waste a person produces. This is all instead of a water-free facility, or better yet, reclamation.

Critical to a joke is that it fits some other pattern, which is what I think you're getting at.

Here is a not-funny joke:

"1, 2, 3, 4, bananas!"

It seems like you're expecting it to follow a logical-consequences pattern. It's really following a more pun-like pattern. I found it amusing.

Reading through the misconceptions page I discover that meteorites are not hot when they hit the earth! And after all this time thinking I could use them to finish off trolls.

What is to standing, as standing is to sitting?

Jumping.

What is to walking, as walking is to crawling?

Running.

What is to humans, as humans are to their pets?

Dragons.

What is to 3D movement, as 3D movement is to 2D?

4D movement.

Never understood the math behind that one. Do I start off lying down?

So I assume that's a crack in the direction of Objectivism, but I think your insight actually applies to a large number of semi-political movements, especially if you see "interesting science fiction", and "utopian/dystopian literature", and "political philosophy" as repackagings of basically the same thing.

Part of the political back story of Plato's Republic is that it documents utopian political theorizing in the presence of Athenian youths. In reality, there were students of Socrates who were part of the Thirty Tyrants... which group was responsible for a political purge in Athens. In Plato's Apology, there's a bit about how Socrates didn't get his hands dirty when ordered to participate in the actual killing but if you want to read critically between the lines you can imagine that his being ordered to drink hemlock was payback for inflicting bad philosophy on the eventual evil leaders of Athens.

Its one of those meta-observations where I'm not sure there's real meat there or not, but the pattern of philosophers inspiring politics and significant political leaders operating according to some crazy theory seems to exist. Maybe the policiains would have grabbed any old philosophy for cover? Or maybe the philosophy actually determines some of the outcome? I have no solid opinion on that right now, prefering so far to have worked on data accumulation...

Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor. Ayn Rand's coterie included Alan Greenspan. Nietzsche and the Nazis sort of has to be mentioned even if it trigger's Godwin. Marx seems to have had something to do with Stalin. Some philosophers at the University of Chicago might be seen as the intellectual grand parents of Cheney et al.

In trying to find data here, the best example of something that didn't end up being famously objectionable to someone may be Saint Thomas Moore's book "A Fruitful and Pleasant Work of the Best State of a Public Weal, and of the New Isle Called Utopia" which served as an inspiration for Vasco de Quiroga's colonial administration of Michoacán.

One of the important themes in all this seems to be that "philosophy is connected to bad politics" with alarming frequency - where the philosophers are not or would not even be fans of the political movements and outcomes which claim to take inspiration from their thoughts.

Having read Zendegi, I get the impression from the portrayal of the character Caplan, with an explicit reference to overcoming bias and with the parody of the "benevolent bootstrap project", that Greg Egan is already not happy with the actions of those he may have inspired and is already trying to distance himself from Singularitarianism in the expectation that things will not work out.

The weird thing is that he says "those people are crazy" and at the same time he says "this neuromorphic AI stuff is morally dangerous and could go horribly wrong". Which, from conversations with LW people, I mean...

...the warnings Egan seems to be trying to raise with this book are a small part of the reason this issue is attracting smart people to online political organization in an effort to take the problems seriously and deal with the issue in an intellectually and morally responsible fashion. But then Egan implicitly bashes the group of people who are already worrying about the fears he addresses in his book...

...which makes me think he just has something like a very "far mode" view of OB (or at least he had such a view in July or 2009 when he stopped adjusting Zendegi's content)?

A far mode view of Overcoming Bias could make us appear homogenous, selfish, and highly competent. The character "Caplan" is basically a sociopathic millionaire with a cryonics policy, a very high risk tolerance, and absolutely no akrasia to speak of... he's some sort of "rationalist ubermensh" twisted into a corporate bad guy. He's not someone struggling to write several meaningful pages every day on an important topic before the time for planning runs out.

I suspect that if Greg got on the phone with some of us, or attended a LW meetup to talk with people, he would find that mostly we just tend to agree on a lot of basic issues. But the phone call didn't happen and now the book is published.

One of the reasons I love science fiction is that it says so much about the time and mindset it was written in. I can read scifi from the 1960's and recognize the themes and pre-occupations and understand how they grew out of 1950's science fiction and what I'm reading fell out of fashion for 1970's stuff and so on. Some of it is pretentious, some childish, some beautiful, some is outright political ranting, some is just plain fun. Usually its a mixture. I wouldn't be surprised if Zendegi is interesting in 2012 for how much it reveals about the preoccupations of people in early 2009.

And the fact that science fiction is working on shorter timescales like this is also something I think is interesting. Shorter science fiction feedback cycles is (weakly) part of what I would expect if concerns about the singularity were signal rather than noise...

This question has a natural upper bound, determined by the preexisting torture/fun distribution in the world. Most people would hold that it's morally acceptable to make the world larger by adding more people whose life outcomes will be drawn from the same probability distribution as the people alive today. If presently the average person has X0 fun, and fraction T0 of people are tortured without you being able to stop it, then you should press the button if X>X0 and N>1/T0.