[ExI] [ZS] [cryo] Nick Bostrom, Anders Sandberg, Stuart Armstrong to be frozen after death

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Thu Jun 13 00:17:04 UTC 2013

On Jun 12, 2013 5:04 PM, "Gregory Lewis" <gjlewis37 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Given we time discount, and possible 'low hanging fruit' concerns,
lifespan may have decreasing marginal value.

You're going to have to explain that premise, as
it is not obvious.

> 2. If you're a prioritarian (hold that a given increment of value is
better given to someone with less value than someone with more, all else
equal; or that the welfare to value function is concave), then you might
prefer many shorter lives over one long one even at the expense of some
total value. It might be generally fairer/better to package lifespan in
many small packets than one large one, so fewer potential people 'miss out'
on the goods of having existed at all.

There are an infinite number of those who might
have existed.  Further, people can help make the
world better: existence is not zero-sum, or even
readily convertible between different people.

If one's continued existence leads, however
incrementally, toward a world in which birth
rates may be higher (including "birth" of AIs),
wouldn't your argument suggest one should
attempt to live as long as possible?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130612/a252da34/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list