[ExI] What should survive and why?

[Lee Corbin]

Stathis writes

> On 06/05/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> > Though even here peculiar paradoxes await.
> > Let's say you would find immortality sufficient, provided also that it
> > was subjectively great beyond your wildest dreams, and it even included
> > a vast community of somewhat like-minded individuals.  Would y'all then
> > be satisfied by the following? 

That was my real question.  Of course, you may not want---probably
wisely---to answer for "y'all", but I was interested in your answer
for yourself. 

My point has to do with objectivity vs. subjectivity. On *just* the
subjective view, what's wrong?  You live forever, etc.  But *objectively*,
your share of the future is rather small, we might say.

 I then went on in order to clarify that concern:

> > In 2061 an AI ruling Earth has extremely recently discovered certain
> > astounding things, such as how using quantum effects to produce
> > infinitely many computations over a finite interval of time. Now, how
> > to deal with all the troglotyte humans? ....next quarter second,
> > the third second, so that at the end, objectively, after two seconds
> > the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem insofar as regards
> > y'all. Or do you want more?  Do you want *objectively* to be around
> > at all times and places in the future?
> 
> Subjective immortality is acceptable.

Hmm?  I didn't know that I was asking anything about morality  :-)

I really do want to know if---under this admittedly very wild hypothesis
---you would find the prospect of such a future alluring or depressing.
And whichever answer, why so?

Lee