Does anyone know why a lot of work has gone in to vegetable-based imitation beef and chicken, but not into good imitation fish?

Lets say we have the capability to create living creatures and some bored scientist makes one that is relatively intelligent (enough to be considered a person in a meaningful, human definition), capable of language, requiring of little sustenance, capable of reproduction and completely and utterly happy except under to most terrible circumstances. Would the utilitarian view of the situation be to convert all usable resources to create habitats for these critters? Would the moral thing be to give the world over to them because they're better at not making each others lives terrible/are happier for the same amount of resources?

I'm pretty new around here so please forgive the sheer newbishness of my question.

Crickets at $38/pound dry weight are close to being competitive with salmon (more than 3 pounds needed to get the equivalent nutrition). Or $23/pound in Thailand (before high shipping fees), suggesting the cost in the U.S. will drop a bit as increased popularity causes more competition and economies of scale.

If you have Alzheimer's, and you want to use cryonics, you should do your very best to get frozen well before you die of the disease.

This is problematic in all jurisdictions I can think of. Even where euthanasia is legal, I don't know of any cryonics organisations taking advantage, and there might be problems for them if they do. I'd very much like to be proven wrong in this.

What evidence do we have about whether cryonics will work for those who die of Alzheimer's?

I thought of a situation in which individuals seem to act irrationally, but I don’t know of any cognitive bias that would cause them to. Some individuals seem willing to fight in wars to “help out” in it despite having a small risk of being killed in it. E.g. some are willing to have a 1/100 chance of being killed if they have a 1/100,000 chance of causing their nation to win the war, meaning that if they decided not to join the war, their nation would be 1/100,000 more likely to lose. However, people seem much less willing to have a 1/1 chance of being killed and a 1/1000 chance of causing their nation to win the war. Assuming one’s utility is a weighted linear sum of whether they died or not (with 1 meaning they died and 0 meaning they lived) and whether their nation lost the war or not (with 1 meaning lose and 0 meaning win), I don’t know of any weights that would make it both worth fighting in the former scenario but not worth fighting in the latter. Are people just acting irrationally or is my model wrong? If they are acting irrationally, what bias is causing them to do so?

I started alternate day calorie restriction last month. I expect it to be one of the best lifestyle changes for increasing my life expectancy.

I've become comfortable enough with it that it no longer requires significant willpower to continue. I think I have slightly more mental energy than before I started (but for the first 17 days, I had drastically lower mental energy).

I have a longer post about this on my blog.

I want to spend a few weeks seriously looking into cryonics: how it works, the costs, the theory about revival, the changes in the technology in the past 60 years, the options that are available.

I want to become an expert in cryonics to the extent that I can answer, in depth, the questions that people typically have when they hear about this "crazy idea" for the first time. {Hmm...That sounds a little like bottom-line reasoning, trying to prepare for objections, instead of ferreting out the truth. I'll have to be careful of that. To be fair, I will need to overcome objections to get my family to sign up. Still, be careful of looking for data just to affirm my naive presumption.}

What should I read?

What do you think of Dewey's proposal?

If the way an AGI treats us would depend upon the way we treat animals, the problem of a Friendly AI would already be partially solved. But there's no way to think it will: if you don't want an AI to treat the way you treat a cow, <easier said than done> then don't program it that way. </easier said than done>