This math only works if I value a year of someone else’s life approximately the same as a year of my life.
If instead I value a year of someone else’s life (on average), say, a tenth as much as I value a year of my own life, then if I use your numbers to compare the EV of cryonics at 4 GDY (giga-Dave-years) to the EV of life-extension research at 1.75 GDY, I conclude that cryonics is a better deal.
Approached the other way… if I don’t value any given life significantly more than any other, there’s no particular reason for me to sign up for cryonics or research life extension. Sure, currently living people will die, but other people will be alive, so the total number of life-years is more or less the same either way… which is what, in this hypothetical, I actually care about. The important thing in that hypothetical is increasing the carrying capacity of the environment, so the population can be maximized.
Your first point is of course valid. My algorithm for determining value of a life is probably a bit different from yours because I end up with a very different result. I determine the value of a life in the following manner:
Value = Current contribution to making this ball of rock a better place + (Quality of life + Unrealised potential) * Number of remaining years.
If we consider extended life spans, the first element of that equation is dwarfed by the rest so we can consider that to be zero for the purpose of this discussion.
Quality of life involves a lot of parameters, and many are worth improving for a lot of people. Low hanging fruit includes: Water supply and sanitation in low-income countries, local pollution in the same countries, easily treatable diseases, Women’s lib. All of these are in my opinion worthy alternatives to cryonics, but maybe not relevant for this particular discussion.
The remaining parameter is Unrealised Potential which I think of as (Intelligence * conscientiousness). I am brighter than most, but more lazy than many, so the result, if interpreted generously, is that I may be worth somewhat more than the median but certainly not by a factor of 10, so if we still go with the numbers above (even if Eliezer pointed out that they were crazy), my stance is still that cryonics is a poor investment. (It may be fun but not necessarily productive to come up with some better numbers.)
Also: I have absolutely no problem accepting that other people have different algorithms and priors for determining value of life, I am just explaining mine.
Your other point was more of a surprise and I have spent a significant amount of time considering it and doing rudimentary research on the subject, because it seems like a very valid point. The main problem is that it does not seem that the total number of high quality life-years is limited by the carrying capacity of the planet, especially if we accept women’s lib as a core requirement for attaining high quality.
Declining fertility rate seems to be extremely well correlated with higher quality of life so, once we sort the poverty problem, the planets population will decline. Singapore already has a fertility rate of less than 1 child per woman and chinas population is expected to peak in 2020.
In the short term however, the carrying capacity may very well be a limiting factor and may be worth increasing. Also because a larger carrying capacity will indirectly help with sorting the poverty problem so it’s a double win. In fact I am seriously considering moving some of my retirement savings from index funds to aquaculture because that seems to be where the most low-hanging fruit seems to be. Suggestions are welcome.
Again thanks for the pushback, having to actually think through my arguments is a new and welcome experience.
The main problem is that it does not seem that the total number of high quality life-years is limited by the carrying capacity of the planet
Sure. And it not seeming that way is a reason to lower our confidence that the hypothetical I described actually characterizes our values in the real world.
You might also find that actually thinking through your arguments in the absence of pushback is a good habit to train.
For example, how did you arrive at your formula for the value of life? If someone were to push back on it for you, how would you support it? If you were going to challenge it, what would be its weakest spots?
This math only works if I value a year of someone else’s life approximately the same as a year of my life.
If instead I value a year of someone else’s life (on average), say, a tenth as much as I value a year of my own life, then if I use your numbers to compare the EV of cryonics at 4 GDY (giga-Dave-years) to the EV of life-extension research at 1.75 GDY, I conclude that cryonics is a better deal.
Approached the other way… if I don’t value any given life significantly more than any other, there’s no particular reason for me to sign up for cryonics or research life extension. Sure, currently living people will die, but other people will be alive, so the total number of life-years is more or less the same either way… which is what, in this hypothetical, I actually care about. The important thing in that hypothetical is increasing the carrying capacity of the environment, so the population can be maximized.
It turns out to matter what we value.
Your first point is of course valid. My algorithm for determining value of a life is probably a bit different from yours because I end up with a very different result. I determine the value of a life in the following manner:
Value = Current contribution to making this ball of rock a better place + (Quality of life + Unrealised potential) * Number of remaining years.
If we consider extended life spans, the first element of that equation is dwarfed by the rest so we can consider that to be zero for the purpose of this discussion.
Quality of life involves a lot of parameters, and many are worth improving for a lot of people. Low hanging fruit includes: Water supply and sanitation in low-income countries, local pollution in the same countries, easily treatable diseases, Women’s lib. All of these are in my opinion worthy alternatives to cryonics, but maybe not relevant for this particular discussion.
The remaining parameter is Unrealised Potential which I think of as (Intelligence * conscientiousness). I am brighter than most, but more lazy than many, so the result, if interpreted generously, is that I may be worth somewhat more than the median but certainly not by a factor of 10, so if we still go with the numbers above (even if Eliezer pointed out that they were crazy), my stance is still that cryonics is a poor investment. (It may be fun but not necessarily productive to come up with some better numbers.)
Also: I have absolutely no problem accepting that other people have different algorithms and priors for determining value of life, I am just explaining mine.
Your other point was more of a surprise and I have spent a significant amount of time considering it and doing rudimentary research on the subject, because it seems like a very valid point. The main problem is that it does not seem that the total number of high quality life-years is limited by the carrying capacity of the planet, especially if we accept women’s lib as a core requirement for attaining high quality.
Declining fertility rate seems to be extremely well correlated with higher quality of life so, once we sort the poverty problem, the planets population will decline. Singapore already has a fertility rate of less than 1 child per woman and chinas population is expected to peak in 2020.
In the short term however, the carrying capacity may very well be a limiting factor and may be worth increasing. Also because a larger carrying capacity will indirectly help with sorting the poverty problem so it’s a double win. In fact I am seriously considering moving some of my retirement savings from index funds to aquaculture because that seems to be where the most low-hanging fruit seems to be. Suggestions are welcome.
Again thanks for the pushback, having to actually think through my arguments is a new and welcome experience.
Sure. And it not seeming that way is a reason to lower our confidence that the hypothetical I described actually characterizes our values in the real world.
Which is no surprise, really.
You’re welcome.
You might also find that actually thinking through your arguments in the absence of pushback is a good habit to train.
For example, how did you arrive at your formula for the value of life? If someone were to push back on it for you, how would you support it? If you were going to challenge it, what would be its weakest spots?
Actually, that last bit was an entirely new thought to me, thanks