I'm not sure I completely understand where you are coming
from. Could you help me out a bit.
> One, you're humans, and suffering is wrong; two, you're humans who
> tend to be important to the Singularity, and suffering might detract
> from that; three, I care about you, too.
When you say suffering is wrong do you mean it is wrong that
Sasha died, or wrong for us to suffer over his death? Are you saying
that we shouldn't be talking about sasha's death, but instead should
be working to bring about the singularity...?
> Even so, the decrease in pain and suffering that might result from
> signing up for cryonics is not as great as the decrease in pain and
> suffering that could be brought about by helping the
> Singularitarians who remain, or (since I haven't, in fact, signed up
> for insurance) brought about by spending my money on Singularitarian
> efforts now.
Tell me if I have this right. Are you saying that instead of
spending $120K on cryonic preservation we should donate that $120K to
computer R&D or something that would bring the singularity here
> It's just that, at least in theory, my life is not intrinsically
> worth more than anyone else's, and is therefore a vanishing quantity
> in any equation which refers to six billion people.
Some day I hope to be like a God that can be very intimate with
trillions of people and more all at the same time. Some day I hope to
feel more pain and suffering if one of those trillions dies, than I do
know when one of the 100 or so extropians I know dies. The
singularity or when we start approaching the infinite it will
certainly amplify, not diminish the importance of 1 in 6 billion will
> I will confess to the extremely immodest but factually correct
> belief that my actions now have a significant probability of saving
> billions of lives, which provides a utilitarian justification for
> socially acceptable forms of selfishness such as not shipping all my
> money to starving Freedonia or whatever
Hmmm, I think I almost understand this. So you are saying
that the $120K spent on cryonic preservation could be instead spent on
something that has the possibility of saving billions of lives right?
If so this makes some sens and I must admit it is a good point. So
you are saying you're going to give up your chance at eternal life,
forgo cryonic suspension, with the hope that doing so will save 6
billion others? I guess if it even had a reasonable chance of saving
20 or 30 of our children you'd be a real hero I'd think. If so, what
is it you're working on or pushing for that might accomplish such?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:10 MDT