And if the expected utility of cryonics is simply a very large yet finite positive quantity?
In that case, arguments that cryonics is intrinsically the better choice become much more dependent on specific estimates of utility and probability.
And so they should.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
And if the expected utility of cryonics is simply a very large yet finite positive quantity?
In that case, arguments that cryonics is intrinsically the better choice become much more dependent on specific estimates of utility and probability.
And so they should.