I think you should probably read more of the Less Wrong sequences before you make more top level posts. Most of the highly upvoted posts are by people that have the knowledge background from the sequences.
“If you confront it rationally full on then you can’t really justify trading off any part of galactic civilization for anything that you could get now days.”
So why, I ask you directly, am I not to argue that we can’t really justify to balance the happiness and utility of a galactic civilization with the MUCH longer time of decay? There is this whole argument about how we have to give rise to the galactic civilization and have to survive now. But I predict that suffering will prevail. That it is too unlikely that the outcome will be positive. What is wrong with that?
I think you should probably read more of the Less Wrong sequences before you make more top level posts. Most of the highly upvoted posts are by people that have the knowledge background from the sequences.
I’m talking about these kind of statements: http://www.vimeo.com/8586168 (5:45)
“If you confront it rationally full on then you can’t really justify trading off any part of galactic civilization for anything that you could get now days.”
So why, I ask you directly, am I not to argue that we can’t really justify to balance the happiness and utility of a galactic civilization with the MUCH longer time of decay? There is this whole argument about how we have to give rise to the galactic civilization and have to survive now. But I predict that suffering will prevail. That it is too unlikely that the outcome will be positive. What is wrong with that?