"Save the world" is a subset of "improve the world" where saving is improving by a lot in a way that the world really needs it. "Improving the world" can mean settling for a smaller improvement, but probably doesn't mean "improving in every way so it will include saving the world". If people stop wanting to "save the world" because they weighted their desire to improve it in lesser ways anywhere near their desire to save it, to sound less egotistical, to avoid the applause light, or to dissociate from people who think they're saving the world by raising awareness or making a list of people who say they want to save the world, or whatever, and the world doesn't get saved because of it, I will be sad.

Is everyone at SIAI in the triple nines cut off? (IQ in the 99.9 percentile)

Sweet: three meetups (Saturday and surrounding Wednesdays) at the time I'm couch-surfing (or urban camping) in the area.

In my vision for the future of the rationalist community, most members are interested in the core of meta-rationality and anti-akrasia and each is interested in a set of peripheral topics (various ways of putting practicing rationality, problems like Sleeping Beauty, trading tutoring, practicing skills, helping the community in practical ways, study groups, social meetings with rationalists, etc.). Some fringe members will be involved in the peripherals and rationality applications but not theory, but they probably won't last long. LW is the core, and will be based around meta-rationality. Meetup groups will form around what local members are interested in, and start talking about those things online, maybe in their Google groups, maybe on their own websites, but probably somewhere cozier and not part of current LW, so the local communities can build their relationships. Meetup groups in different areas talking about the same things will merge their online discussions when they want to, possibly as part of LW.

But perhaps a lot of people would rather talk about rationality than use it. It's the easy thing to do. Meetups might be useful to get people to observe more evidence and encounter new problems, encouraging the use of rationality.

Or we could skip straight to that by creating subforums for specific topics like Probability, Values, AI, and Singularity for LW users, inviting more posts on the topics you're missing.

For every non-duplicate comment replying to this one praising me for my right action, I will donate $10 to SIAI, up to a cap of $1010, with the count ending on 1 June 2011. Also accepting private messages.

Edit: The cap was met on 30 May. Donation of $1010 made.

I want the world to not need to be saved, but will settle for it being saved. The reality of existential risk is such an inconvenience. I want to help, but probably won't have, recognize, and successfully act on the opportunity to do so.

The scenarios I can imagine where a list like this would be useful are farfetched.

Hopefully they can spare a few hours! (unless they really are lame. haha). I look forward to meeting you over the summer!

But nitrous oxide would be fun.

MDMA, acid and meth are probably all more fun. :)

Is there a list of cryonicist-approved suicide methods?

I recall a conversation somewhere which considered the options of a hypothetical terminally ill patient who wished to cryopreserve himself before his brain was further damaged. Finding a country that allows euthanasia and having a cryo team on site seems like the best option!

Failing that I expect drowning in a partially frozen water source (with an observer nearby to secure the body) is probably a reasonably good option. Don't shoot yourself in the head or jump off a cliff.

Oh, I just noticed you are the same user who was casually ambivalent about the suicide option in another comment somewhere about here. That changes the connotation from pure theory somewhat towards practical advice seeking. I probably should clam up now and play the signalling game!

People may for instance be severely mistaken about their prospects for improvement, especially while in the midst of acute crisis.(Conceivably, that could even have been his own situation.)

At the risk of sounding callous, because I did not know Chris or understand the suffering he was going through, I believe that Chris was wrong about this. I'm not sure that one can have enough certainty over (the lack of) future happiness that one can reasonably decide to cut one's losses.

There is a great deal of uncertainty and randomness in life. Good things (and bad things) do happen, and they can happen suddenly and without warning. There were many such instances in my own life, when I thought that things were probably not going to get any better even despite my best efforts, and then, they did so serendipitously. The girlfriend I never thought would be interested in me. The job I never dreamed I would have the chance to have. Life is unfair, but sometimes we get lucky too. Given this uncertainty, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and choose to live?

I wish Chris had chosen life, and if there are any others out there feeling as he did, please reconsider, and if you really truly must, do it in a way that is cryonics-recoverable and have the proper arrangements in place.