<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-06-10 15:54, Florent Berthet
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAA9DTzQfua4Sh7-f5H2vtaTkH_V6ZWcPcMEhUzyFqXMs+76wMQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Guys, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm asking for
answers because I want to know how it's the best way to spend
money, on an utilitarian point of view. <span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">If our
main goal is to mitigate x-risks (as explained in Bostrom's
astronomical waste argument), it would seem to me that any
amount of money would be better spent directly on research
rather than on cryopreservation. </span>The articles says that
it costs between <span
style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">£16,500
and £125,000 to be cryopreserved. That could pay a researcher
full time. If I had that much money, wouldn't you prefer me to
give it to the FHI rather than on my own cryopreservation?</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, we do not have that money either *as a lump sum*, so we pay
using life insurances. Which is about 15 quid per month for me,
about one dinner's worth. In fact, stocks and flows are very
different things: the cost of a cryopreservation is actually not
enough to pay for a postdoc for very long. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAA9DTzQfua4Sh7-f5H2vtaTkH_V6ZWcPcMEhUzyFqXMs+76wMQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span
style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> Sure I
can do whatever I want with my money, but that doesn't mean
any decision is equally good.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yup. I think your question might have sounded shrill, but it is a
good one. We have Peter Singer dropping by the neighbourhood from
time to time, and we share office with the effective altruists, so
these issues are on our minds. <br>
<br>
My answer is something like this: I am a friendly, selfish guy who
doesn't follow a consistent ethical system (I just work in the
department!) I like to maximize my enjoyment long-term, and that
means that I want to extend and enhance myself, avoid dying, and
avoid xrisk. I also somewhat agree with the Parfitian view about the
fragility of the self, so I also try to ensure that a lot of the
other minds in the world get the same benefit - but I give some
preference to minds like my own. The end result of these
considerations is that I <br>
<br>
(1) spend a fairly modest amount of money for "care of the self" -
nice food, beetles, cryonics. <br>
<br>
(2) Another fraction of my income is used for travel and other
activities linked to transhumanism, xrisk and academic pursuits -
ensuring that the right memes and research get done. Basically I am
using my salary to do more work. <br>
<br>
(3) I am uncertain about where charity does the best good: while we
have reasonable arguments for maximizing QUALYs, it is not clear how
to compare that with (say) reducing xrisk or promoting enhancement.
Hence I think it is rational to actually save and invest money for
the future where I will have a better idea. Since I think we should
not regard temporal separation as different for spatial separation
morally speaking, helping in the future is almost as good as helping
in the present (minus issues of uncertainty and that some things
affect the amount of future - again xrisk and GCRs rear their ugly
heads and likely get extra priority this way, if we knew effective
ways of reducing them by paying). <br>
<br>
That is roughly my approach.<br>
<br>
One thing I like to point out to cryonics sceptics is that I have a
strong motivation to be the kind of person the future would want to
have around. And I am motivated to help ensure that the future does
happen and is reasonably nice. <br>
<br>
(I have been interviewed about cryonics 7 times today by different
BBC channels, personal best!)<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University
</pre>
</body>
</html>