A vastly disproportionate percentage of the people who have signup for cryonics are interested in the singularity and have helped the SIAI through paying for some of their conferences. This, I admit, might be due to correlation rather than causation.
Your point is valid, but you seem to have dodged the thrust of my main post. Do you really think that cryonics advocacy is comparable in efficacy to the most efficient ways of working against existential risk? If not, you should not conceptualize cryonics advocacy as philanthropic.
“Do you really think that cryonics advocacy is comparable in efficacy to the most efficient ways of working against existential risk?”
No, but I do think spending money on cryonics probably increases expenditures on existential risk. Cryonics and existential risk spending are complements not substitutes.
Also, your not first best argument against cryonics also applies to over 99.999% of human expenditures and labors.
“I’d be interested in any evidence that you have”
A vastly disproportionate percentage of the people who have signup for cryonics are interested in the singularity and have helped the SIAI through paying for some of their conferences. This, I admit, might be due to correlation rather than causation.
Your point is valid, but you seem to have dodged the thrust of my main post. Do you really think that cryonics advocacy is comparable in efficacy to the most efficient ways of working against existential risk? If not, you should not conceptualize cryonics advocacy as philanthropic.
“Do you really think that cryonics advocacy is comparable in efficacy to the most efficient ways of working against existential risk?”
No, but I do think spending money on cryonics probably increases expenditures on existential risk. Cryonics and existential risk spending are complements not substitutes.
Also, your not first best argument against cryonics also applies to over 99.999% of human expenditures and labors.