It’s probably worth noting that given equal amounts of time conscious and active, I would think it would be better to have it spread out over a longer time, as surviving farther into the future means you get to see more of what happens in that future. So subtracting 4 years from the middle really may not be as bad as subtracting 4 years from the end.
I would think it would be better to have it spread out over a longer time, as surviving farther into the future means you get to see more of what happens in that future
My own musings on the topic have been that the reason one should choose to sleep rather than sacrifice life to stay awake is that you get to see more of the future and be affected by the future. There are many ways in which staying alive could pay off significantly:
one might make it to the ‘actuarial escape velocity’, where medicine is extending life faster than you’re living it
one might survive to the point where uploading is workable
one might live to the point where cryogenics has improved enough that minimal damage is done during the preservation and it will soon be feasible to resurrect one
one might persist to the point where resurrection is possible
one might be alive when nootropics and other intelligence enhancements become enough of a win to make up for lost time, or reduce sleep needs with minimal costs (some perfected modafinil?)
Given that losing lots of sleep isn’t a neutral thing and damages things beside longevity (mood, intelligence, creativity), and given many likely benefits to surviving, the modest boost in time awake isn’t worth it, I think.
The counter-argument is that humans probably have greater capacity to enjoy life (not claiming that’s the ultimate metric, but it is one) before they get old.
But not all people of the same age are really the same amount of ‘old’. It seems likely that you get unhealthy faster, which causes your earlier death. It’d surprise me if it were closer to a symptomless clock that just killed you a bit earlier.
The distinction between sidereal years lived and ‘biological age’ (as well as mental age and such) deserve to be made more often. When people ask “but why would anyone want to live to be 1000 years old?”, the answer might be “to play football!”
Also, having that extra 4 years in the middle could allow you to make more changes to the world sooner, and have an effect on a larger portion of the future light cone.
...also making changes to yourself that you have longer time to benefit from. I think you had this in mind, but ‘changes to the world’ obscures the point a bit.
BTW, this ‘life arbitrage’ was not my main point, I was trying to highlight the biases that would prevent a person from calculating ‘quantity of life’ correctly even if it was +4/-1 vs +4/-4. This is a valuable related point nevertheless.
It’s probably worth noting that given equal amounts of time conscious and active, I would think it would be better to have it spread out over a longer time, as surviving farther into the future means you get to see more of what happens in that future. So subtracting 4 years from the middle really may not be as bad as subtracting 4 years from the end.
My own musings on the topic have been that the reason one should choose to sleep rather than sacrifice life to stay awake is that you get to see more of the future and be affected by the future. There are many ways in which staying alive could pay off significantly:
one might make it to the ‘actuarial escape velocity’, where medicine is extending life faster than you’re living it
one might survive to the point where uploading is workable
one might live to the point where cryogenics has improved enough that minimal damage is done during the preservation and it will soon be feasible to resurrect one
one might persist to the point where resurrection is possible
one might be alive when nootropics and other intelligence enhancements become enough of a win to make up for lost time, or reduce sleep needs with minimal costs (some perfected modafinil?)
Given that losing lots of sleep isn’t a neutral thing and damages things beside longevity (mood, intelligence, creativity), and given many likely benefits to surviving, the modest boost in time awake isn’t worth it, I think.
The counter-argument is that humans probably have greater capacity to enjoy life (not claiming that’s the ultimate metric, but it is one) before they get old.
But not all people of the same age are really the same amount of ‘old’. It seems likely that you get unhealthy faster, which causes your earlier death. It’d surprise me if it were closer to a symptomless clock that just killed you a bit earlier.
The distinction between sidereal years lived and ‘biological age’ (as well as mental age and such) deserve to be made more often. When people ask “but why would anyone want to live to be 1000 years old?”, the answer might be “to play football!”
Also, having that extra 4 years in the middle could allow you to make more changes to the world sooner, and have an effect on a larger portion of the future light cone.
+1
...also making changes to yourself that you have longer time to benefit from. I think you had this in mind, but ‘changes to the world’ obscures the point a bit.
BTW, this ‘life arbitrage’ was not my main point, I was trying to highlight the biases that would prevent a person from calculating ‘quantity of life’ correctly even if it was +4/-1 vs +4/-4. This is a valuable related point nevertheless.