Carl, why say that about cryonics funding in particular rather than money spent on going to the movies? Also, anything to do with Africa has to be extremely carefully targeted or it ends up being worse than useless—actively harmful—this should always be mentioned in the same sentence, since Africa has been actively harmed by most aid money spent there.
Sufficient popularity of cryonics, if the world lasts that long, would benefit a very large number of people. African aid couldn’t compete, only existential risk mitigation could.
I’m willing to accept such a reply from people who (a) don’t go to the movies and (b) spend a large fraction of their disposable income on existential risk mitigation, but not otherwise.
Carl, why say that about cryonics funding in particular rather than money spent on going to the movies? Also, anything to do with Africa has to be extremely carefully targeted or it ends up being worse than useless—actively harmful—this should always be mentioned in the same sentence, since Africa has been actively harmed by most aid money spent there.
Sufficient popularity of cryonics, if the world lasts that long, would benefit a very large number of people. African aid couldn’t compete, only existential risk mitigation could.
I’m willing to accept such a reply from people who (a) don’t go to the movies and (b) spend a large fraction of their disposable income on existential risk mitigation, but not otherwise.