If you don’t have any interest in philanthropy then my post was not intended for you, and I think that it’s unfortunate that my post increased LessWrong’s noise-to-signal ratio for you.
If you have some interest in philanthropy, then I would be interested in knowing what you’re talking about when you say:
I found the normative presumptions interspersed with the text distasteful.
If you don’t have any interest in philanthropy then my post was not intended for you
Given that your argument only rules out cryonics for genuine utilitarians or altruists, it’s quite possible to have some concern for philanthropy and yet enough concern for yourself to make cryonics the rational choice. You’re playing up a false dilemma.
If you don’t have any interest in philanthropy then my post was not intended for you
I like philanthropy, and not your sermon.
I think that it’s unfortunate that my post increased LessWrong’s noise-to-signal ratio for you.
I don’t consider this post noise. It is actively bad signal. There is a universal bias that makes it difficult to counter “people should be more altruistic” claims of any kind.
If you have some interest in philanthropy, then I would be interested in knowing what you’re talking about when you say:
‘Should’ claims demanding that people sacrifice their very life to donate the resources that allow their very survival to charity. In particular in those instances where they are backed up with insinuations that ‘analytical skills’ and rational ability in general require such sacrifice.
‘Should’ claims demanding that people sacrifice their very life to donate the resources that allow their very survival to charity. In particular in those instances where they are backed up with insinuations that ‘analytical skills’ and rational ability in general require such sacrifice.
Nope, you’ve misunderstood me. Nowhere in my post did I say that people should sacrifice their lives to donate resources to charity. See my response to ciphergoth for my position. If there’s some part of my post that you think that I should change to clarify my position, I’m open to suggestions.
Nope, you’ve misunderstood me. Nowhere in my post did I say that people should sacrifice their lives to donate resources to charity.
That’s exactly what you’re saying, as far as I can tell. Are you not advocating that people should give money to charity instead of being cryopreserved? While I think charity is a good thing, I draw the line somewhere shy of committing suicide for the benefit of others.
My post is about how cryonics should be conceptualized rather than an attempt to advocate a uniform policy of how people should interact with cryonics. Again, see my response to ciphergoth. For ciphergoth, cryonics may be the right thing. I personally do not derive fuzzies from the idea of signing up for cryonics (I get my fuzzies in other ways) and I don’t think that people should expend resources trying to change this.
Perhaps, but I have not misunderstood the literal meaning of the words in the post.
Downvoted for being unnecessarily polemical.
Yet surprisingly necessary. The nearly ubiquitous pattern when people object to demands regarding charity is along the lines of “it’s just not interesting to you but for other people it is important” or “it’s noise vs signal”. People are slow to understand that it is possible to be entirely engaged with the topic and think it is bad. After all, the applause lights are all there, plain as day—how could someone miss them?
If you don’t have any interest in philanthropy then my post was not intended for you, and I think that it’s unfortunate that my post increased LessWrong’s noise-to-signal ratio for you.
If you have some interest in philanthropy, then I would be interested in knowing what you’re talking about when you say:
Given that your argument only rules out cryonics for genuine utilitarians or altruists, it’s quite possible to have some concern for philanthropy and yet enough concern for yourself to make cryonics the rational choice. You’re playing up a false dilemma.
I like philanthropy, and not your sermon.
I don’t consider this post noise. It is actively bad signal. There is a universal bias that makes it difficult to counter “people should be more altruistic” claims of any kind.
‘Should’ claims demanding that people sacrifice their very life to donate the resources that allow their very survival to charity. In particular in those instances where they are backed up with insinuations that ‘analytical skills’ and rational ability in general require such sacrifice.
The post fits my definition of ‘evil’.
Nope, you’ve misunderstood me. Nowhere in my post did I say that people should sacrifice their lives to donate resources to charity. See my response to ciphergoth for my position. If there’s some part of my post that you think that I should change to clarify my position, I’m open to suggestions.
Downvoted for being unnecessarily polemical.
That’s exactly what you’re saying, as far as I can tell. Are you not advocating that people should give money to charity instead of being cryopreserved? While I think charity is a good thing, I draw the line somewhere shy of committing suicide for the benefit of others.
My post is about how cryonics should be conceptualized rather than an attempt to advocate a uniform policy of how people should interact with cryonics. Again, see my response to ciphergoth. For ciphergoth, cryonics may be the right thing. I personally do not derive fuzzies from the idea of signing up for cryonics (I get my fuzzies in other ways) and I don’t think that people should expend resources trying to change this.
Perhaps, but I have not misunderstood the literal meaning of the words in the post.
Yet surprisingly necessary. The nearly ubiquitous pattern when people object to demands regarding charity is along the lines of “it’s just not interesting to you but for other people it is important” or “it’s noise vs signal”. People are slow to understand that it is possible to be entirely engaged with the topic and think it is bad. After all, the applause lights are all there, plain as day—how could someone miss them?