Doesn’t any optimal strategy start (and continue for about 80% of it) with “get as much money as possible”? Which isn’t to say that there aren’t some other relevant aspects, but I’m not sure the question requires a sequence quite this long.
I don’t think that optimizing for money is that simple. Of the top of my mind:
Someone who will optimize for money in the beggining, following class 1 of strategies, should optimize for political power as well. Should keep a close circle of engaged, powerful friends who cooperate when it comes to that. Should live with other people to avoid risks of dying home alone. Should control happiness to stay motivated to get the money. Should exercise frequently (getting a walking desktop computer seems appropriate), may want to go polyphasic and work three shifts.
There are other kinds of things as well: Living near Massachussetts General Hospital? Or a cryonics facility? In a suburban area to live longer? Despite the costs in power that come with that?
Should exercise frequently (getting a walking desktop computer seems appropriate), may want to go polyphasic and work three shifts.
I don’t think that there good evidence that going polyphasic is good for lifespan. There little evidence about long term health effects and a good chance that it hurts some systems.
At what point does the reduction in all cause mortality justify changing your behavior? Continuing to commute to your high paying job might be tempting if you only have $400k, but it’s probably a better idea to start freelancing from home even if it means a paycut. Driving is dangerous.
While an interesting abstract question, I don’t think it would actually ever be relevant in real life (because of the high pay differential between most freelance and permanent jobs). The real life answer would be “if after proper investigation, driving turns out to be dangerous even if you drive safely in a safe car, rent an apartment close to your job so you can walk there”.
I feel like most trade-off questions are actually trading off non-immortality things you actually want (e.g. living in a nice suburban place, a family) versus immortality rather than different paths to (im)mortality as such.
Well, yes, I did mention that there are some other relevant aspects, and naturally they would require you to reduce earnings slightly. However, I think most of these are orthogonal to maximising earnings (you rent an apartment, you don’t give up the highest paying job you can get), which makes strategy considerations fairly easy.
Doesn’t any optimal strategy start (and continue for about 80% of it) with “get as much money as possible”? Which isn’t to say that there aren’t some other relevant aspects, but I’m not sure the question requires a sequence quite this long.
I don’t think that optimizing for money is that simple. Of the top of my mind:
Someone who will optimize for money in the beggining, following class 1 of strategies, should optimize for political power as well. Should keep a close circle of engaged, powerful friends who cooperate when it comes to that. Should live with other people to avoid risks of dying home alone. Should control happiness to stay motivated to get the money. Should exercise frequently (getting a walking desktop computer seems appropriate), may want to go polyphasic and work three shifts.
There are other kinds of things as well: Living near Massachussetts General Hospital? Or a cryonics facility? In a suburban area to live longer? Despite the costs in power that come with that?
Etc..…
I don’t think that there good evidence that going polyphasic is good for lifespan. There little evidence about long term health effects and a good chance that it hurts some systems.
At what point does the reduction in all cause mortality justify changing your behavior? Continuing to commute to your high paying job might be tempting if you only have $400k, but it’s probably a better idea to start freelancing from home even if it means a paycut. Driving is dangerous.
While an interesting abstract question, I don’t think it would actually ever be relevant in real life (because of the high pay differential between most freelance and permanent jobs). The real life answer would be “if after proper investigation, driving turns out to be dangerous even if you drive safely in a safe car, rent an apartment close to your job so you can walk there”.
I feel like most trade-off questions are actually trading off non-immortality things you actually want (e.g. living in a nice suburban place, a family) versus immortality rather than different paths to (im)mortality as such.
sure but this might involve spending more money or in some other way losing money, which was my point.
Well, yes, I did mention that there are some other relevant aspects, and naturally they would require you to reduce earnings slightly. However, I think most of these are orthogonal to maximising earnings (you rent an apartment, you don’t give up the highest paying job you can get), which makes strategy considerations fairly easy.