Thanks for this post. I tend to lurk, and I had some similar questions about the LW enthusiasm for cryo.
Here’s something that puzzles me. Many people here, it seems to me, have the following preference order:
pay for my cryo > donation: x-risk reduction (through SIAI, FHI, or SENS) > paying for cryo for others
Of course, for the utilitarians among us, the question arises: why pay for my cryo over risk reduction? (If you just care about others way less than you care about yourself, fine.) Some answer by arguing that paying for your own cryo maximizes x-risk reduction better than the other alternatives because of its indirect effects. This reeks of wishful thinking and doesn’t fit well with the preference order above. There are plenty of LWers, I assume, who haven’t signed up for cryo, but would if someone else would pay the life insurance policy. If you really think that paying for your own cryo maximizes x-risk reduction, shouldn’t you also think that getting others signed up for cryo does as well? (There are some differences, sure. Maybe the indirect effects aren’t as substantial if others don’t pay their own way in full. But I doubt this justifies the preference.) If so, it would seem that rather than funding x-risk reduction through donating to these organizations, you should fund the cryo preservation of LWers and other willing people.
So which is it utilitarians: you shouldn’t pay for your own cryo or you should be working on paying for the cryo of others as well?
If you think paying for cryo is better, want to pay for mine first?
I care more about myself than about others. This is what would be expected from evolution and—frankly—I see no need to alter it. Well, I wouldn’t.
I suspect that many people who claim they don’t are mistaken, as the above preference ordering seems to illustrate. Maximize utility, yes; but utility is a subjective function, as my utility function makes explicit reference to myself.
Thanks for this post. I tend to lurk, and I had some similar questions about the LW enthusiasm for cryo.
Here’s something that puzzles me. Many people here, it seems to me, have the following preference order:
pay for my cryo > donation: x-risk reduction (through SIAI, FHI, or SENS) > paying for cryo for others
Of course, for the utilitarians among us, the question arises: why pay for my cryo over risk reduction? (If you just care about others way less than you care about yourself, fine.) Some answer by arguing that paying for your own cryo maximizes x-risk reduction better than the other alternatives because of its indirect effects. This reeks of wishful thinking and doesn’t fit well with the preference order above. There are plenty of LWers, I assume, who haven’t signed up for cryo, but would if someone else would pay the life insurance policy. If you really think that paying for your own cryo maximizes x-risk reduction, shouldn’t you also think that getting others signed up for cryo does as well? (There are some differences, sure. Maybe the indirect effects aren’t as substantial if others don’t pay their own way in full. But I doubt this justifies the preference.) If so, it would seem that rather than funding x-risk reduction through donating to these organizations, you should fund the cryo preservation of LWers and other willing people.
So which is it utilitarians: you shouldn’t pay for your own cryo or you should be working on paying for the cryo of others as well?
If you think paying for cryo is better, want to pay for mine first?
I care more about myself than about others. This is what would be expected from evolution and—frankly—I see no need to alter it. Well, I wouldn’t.
I suspect that many people who claim they don’t are mistaken, as the above preference ordering seems to illustrate. Maximize utility, yes; but utility is a subjective function, as my utility function makes explicit reference to myself.