Slavery or indentured servitude, perhaps.
If I may ask, are you yourself a cryonicist who might end up facing the question from either side?
Provide value
You seem to be assuming that immediate economic value is the only value worth considering; was this your intent?
enforceable right
Does this criteria apply to present-day questions that are in vaguely the same ballpark? That is, do you choose who to help based on whether or not you can force them to pay you?
Does this criteria apply to present-day questions that are in vaguely the same ballpark? That is, do you choose who to help based on whether or not you can force them to pay you?
Good point here - I don't usually have any mechanism to force people to pay me. I usually to help based on how likely I think it I am to get what I want out of it. A few examples:
You seem to be assuming that immediate economic value is the only value worth considering; was this your intent?
I'm not sure what you mean by economic value. If you mean money, no. I think that humans value many things. I could certainly see a respected artist being revived even if the reviver could not directly tax the artist's production.
If I may ask, are you yourself a cryonicist who might end up facing the question from either side?
I'm not a cryonicist at this time. I do think there's a pretty good chance that either cryonics, brain uploading, or something similar will see some people from my lifetime recreated in a form after their deaths.
Which cryonicist to thaw?
Say that, in thirty-plus years, you're still alive and I've been cryonically preserved for a while. What could I have done during my life to convince you to apply your finite resources to resurrect me, rather than someone else?
Would it make a difference if the only potentially available resurrection method was destructive mind uploading, for which a vitrified brain would happen to be an ideal test subject?
You would need to be able to provide value for me - so you would need to have skills (or the ability to gain skills) that are still in expensive and in demand, and society would need to give me an enforceable right to extract that value from you. Slavery or indentured servitude, perhaps.
Thanks for your feedback. From the FAQ...
How would it work?
At anytime throughout the year you could go directly to the EPA website and make a tax payment of any amount. The EPA would give you a receipt and you'd submit all your receipts to the IRS by April 15. Anybody who didn't want to shop for themselves would have the option of giving their taxes to their impersonal shoppers (congress).
For sure my presentation is imperfect. And I definitely wish I could perfectly copy Hanson and Sumner. Unfortunately, I don't have their skills. My skill set is in researching and thinking... definitely not writing. Do I wish it was the other way around? No way. I really wouldn't want to be Moldbug!
In large part because I suck at writing... the reception to pragmatarianism has been less than positive. My perception of the immense benefits keeps me going as well as the fact that not a single critic has cited a single source which supports the idea of allowing a small group of people to allocate everybody's taxes. Our system doesn't exist because the evidence supports it... it exists because that's how we've always done it.
Of course it was my hope that the majority of people on this website would seriously consider my evidence and arguments before they voted... but my webstats show that this is clearly not the case. Instead, people here simply showed their considerable bias. It doesn't seem like whatever is going on here is really working. Yes, there are a few exceptions like yourself... but every forum I've participated on has roughly the same amount of thoughtful thinkers.
Anyways, because the evidence is on my side, it's a given that eventually more and more people will realize this. It would happen sooner rather than later if I was a better writer but... I can't cry over spilled milk.
You keep bringing up sucking at writing as a core reason there's a poor reception to your ideas. This doesn't seem correct to me, the mechanics of your writing seem fine. A couple things you could do to improve to improve your posts:
Learning these things was very helpful to me, and I hope I can pass that along to you.
Where would be a good place to discuss an old Boring Advice?
E.g. I have gave in and bought myself a smart phone last year, but the utility I derive from it is yet to turn positive. I should have been better off if I either allocated a significant portion of resources to learn using it properly, or not buy at all.
A smart phone is easily the highest roi purchase I've ever made. For people who don't have them, seriously it's worth it.
That's long struck me as rather tragic. They tried to turn a million quid (mostly received from a novelty number 1 hit) into being respected artists, first by nailing it to a board and so on, and eventually by burning it. But that's not how art works.
they're also on record as having really regretted doing it
My skin (particularly my hands, because soap is harsh) is prone to drying out, so a humidifier really reduces small issues.
The high end of clothing is pretty much entirely veblen pricing - I sew for a hobby, and the maximally nice suit would cost: 6 meters of high-end wool fabric: 120 euro. 5 meters of silk for lining: 70 euro. Bits and bobs (Buttons, ect) 10. Doing the whole thing without shortcuts (French seams, double stitching).. 15 hours? For me. An actual tailor is likely faster, but even at first world wages, its another 300 euro, max, so totals out to 500 euro. Sanity checking this by looking up the local tailors rates for a suit... yup, 500 to 800.
Any suit costing more than this is entirely down to people paying over the odds to show they have money to burn. Or not realizing that their clothing budget has reached the point where they should just stop trying to find nicer things in the shops and get everything tailored.
I self taught sewing via the internet and deconstructing worn out bits of my wardrobe. Which led to 2 hilarious realizations.
1: jeans are the pinnacle of industrial clothing production. All the seams are done right, the edges are folded in so nothing can unravel, the stress points are reinforced, the sizing system makes actual sense, and the cloth is basically indestructible. And they are cheap.
2; Everything else. And I do mean every single other item of clothing that I owned that had been bought in a shop? Soddy manufacture. Things that cost easily 3 times as much as a pair of jeans were manufactured to nowhere near as high a standard. And looking at the detail work in more upscale establishments than I usually buy at indicate that doesn't actually change much at all going up the price scale. And this is for mens wear. The things people foist on women make me want to cry.
the buttons on a high end suit can cost much more than 10 euro. First hit on amazon for mother of pearl buttons is $36, and I'm sure there are more expensive materials in use. Likewise for fabric, I think. Do you need these things? No. But they exist, and you can pay for them.
Also typically the cost of clothing approximately doubles every times it changes hands, so if cost of product was $500, the retailer might pay $1000, and the consumer might pay $2000.
High fashion really is expensive just to be expensive, though.
Will anyone try this? For those of you who ignore this, instead, please leave a comment telling me why. Is that the rational thing to do?
Say I have have a desktop with a monitor, a laptop, a tablet and a smart phone. I am looking for creative ideas on how to use them simultaneously, for example when programming to use the tablet for displaying documentation and having multiple screens via desktop computer and laptop, while the smart phone displays some tertiary information.
The biggest hangup I've found in using multiple computers simultaneously is copy pasting long strings. I can chat them to myself, but it's still slightly awkwarder than I'd like.
Otherwise, Sherincall is pretty on point.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
It's already legal to perform a medical procedure to save someone's life without their consent if they're not capable of consenting, and then demand payment. You could still go bankrupt, but that causes problems so if you're capable of repaying you probably would.
That's slightly terrifying, but I guess makes sense as an incentive to perform life saving medical interventions