I would guess this is a pretty small risk compared to the other risks
Keep in mind that the risk of dying in an unrecoverable way and the risk of becoming uninsurable and destitute are fairly independent (actually, they’re negatively correlated: they can’t both happen!). As such, it doesn’t matter which is bigger or how they compare to each other. Each should be evaluated and addressed separately.
Keep in mind that the risk of dying in an unrecoverable way and the risk of becoming uninsurable and destitute are fairly independent (actually, they’re negatively correlated: they can’t both happen!). As such, it doesn’t matter which is bigger or how they compare to each other. Each should be evaluated and addressed separately.
I am inclined to disagree with this. For example, let’s suppose it would cost me $2,000 to sign up for cryonics with a 99% chance of success and $3,000 to sign up for cryonics with a 100% chance of success. I wold probably take the second option. On the other hand, if the $2,000 option gave me a 25% chance of success and the $3000 option gave me a 26% chance of success, I would probably take the first.
Is that irrational? Am I committing some kind of fallacy here? Are my choices logically inconsistent? Which would you choose?
Maybe the “separately” should be removed from my comment. Each risk should be considered, whether together or separately. It’s not an either/or choice, it’s a both are real situation.
Yes, that set of choices is irrational. If a 1% chance of irreversible death is worth more than $1000 for you to prevent, that’s true regardless of your base chance.
Yes, that set of choices is irrational. If a 1% chance of irreversible death is worth more than $1000 for you to prevent, that’s true regardless of your base chance
Why does that make it irrational? Why is it irrational that the amount of risk you are already facing can and should affect the amount you are willing to pay to avoid further risk?
Or to put it in more formal terms, why is it irrational to have a non-linear utility function?
Keep in mind that the risk of dying in an unrecoverable way and the risk of becoming uninsurable and destitute are fairly independent (actually, they’re negatively correlated: they can’t both happen!). As such, it doesn’t matter which is bigger or how they compare to each other. Each should be evaluated and addressed separately.
I am inclined to disagree with this. For example, let’s suppose it would cost me $2,000 to sign up for cryonics with a 99% chance of success and $3,000 to sign up for cryonics with a 100% chance of success. I wold probably take the second option. On the other hand, if the $2,000 option gave me a 25% chance of success and the $3000 option gave me a 26% chance of success, I would probably take the first.
Is that irrational? Am I committing some kind of fallacy here? Are my choices logically inconsistent? Which would you choose?
Maybe the “separately” should be removed from my comment. Each risk should be considered, whether together or separately. It’s not an either/or choice, it’s a both are real situation.
Yes, that set of choices is irrational. If a 1% chance of irreversible death is worth more than $1000 for you to prevent, that’s true regardless of your base chance.
Why does that make it irrational? Why is it irrational that the amount of risk you are already facing can and should affect the amount you are willing to pay to avoid further risk?
Or to put it in more formal terms, why is it irrational to have a non-linear utility function?