typepad had some weird problems the past few weeks preventing me from making new posts. But on the right side of this blog, you should be able to note all the new comments I made on old posts, in dialogue with TGGP.
What I've been thinking about:
1. An increasing number of credible experts think we'll have functional immortality within a generation or two. At the same time, no one seems convinced that information theoretic death (by which I mean destruction of one's brain, etc. so thoroughly that it would take more computing power than exists or that would ever be utilized in reality to revive a person) is impossible, or an unlikely state for one to enter into. Thus, I think one of my biggest rational priorities should be to try to stay alive and avoid situations that could put me in information theoretic death. Thus, it may be more rational for me to avoid risks that could greatly increase my wealth if it could moderately increase my risk for information theoretic death. This is because the experts seem to think immortality will be available for the masses, but perhaps not for those who end up in an information theoretic death state. If the experts thought immortality would only be available for a financial elite, then it would make sense for me to adjust my strategy and put myself at increased risk of information theoretic death to increase my financial wealth.
Functionally, this comes down to travel: generally, and specifically to locations that put me at increased risk of information theoretic death. It may be in my interested to travel less and to bunker down more in safe environments. After all, even if I'm bottom 80th% financially 50 years from now, if I'm alive and conscious I may be better positioned to be immortal than the significant number of people in the top 5% financially who die flying and motoring to business events, in such a way that they may be at significant risk for information theoretic death.
Clearly this needs to be thought out and formalized better. Commenters welcome!
I'd love to see that more thought out and formalized. Personally, I happen to travel very little and don't have a good plan for getting rich yet. So I'm biased towards evaluations of risk that put emphasis on the danger of travel and little importance on money.
Posted by: Ben Wraith | April 26, 2008 at 07:02 PM
If you're going to travel, planes are safer than cars. I don't know the stats for trains or boats. Hitch-hiking is a definite no-no.
People can get by without traveling. Murray Rothbard apparently stayed in Brooklyn nearly his whole life because of his fear.
Posted by: TGGP | April 26, 2008 at 11:33 PM
TGGP, the "planes are safer than cars" stat doesn't necessarily apply to a few conditionals, the biggest of which is: is flying on a plane raise risk of information theoretic death more than riding in a car (or car variant).
Also, it's not clear to me, for example, that the safest way to fly on a plane is safer than the safest way to ride in a car.
Although I grant you that the evidence seems clear (and widely known) that being a commercial plane passenger is safer than being an average driver -a narrower claim.
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous | April 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM
previous post should read " ... which is: does flying ..." instead of " ... which is: is flying ..."
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous | April 26, 2008 at 11:42 PM
flying on a plane raise risk of information theoretic death more than riding in a car (or car variant)
What do you mean? That much of the risk of cars is in non-lethal injuries? I believe the risk of death is still higher in cars. I agree that you can make decisions that will result in much greater safety when driving. On a plane it's just which planes you pick, as I assume you don't have a pilot's license.
Posted by: TGGP | April 27, 2008 at 12:19 AM
TGGP, what I mean is that likelihood die in an accident is different than likelihood to be vaporized in an accident. By that criteria it's possible that car travel is safer, but it's an empirical question.
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous | April 27, 2008 at 02:49 AM
I think your brain decays pretty quickly after death (at least according to Herbert West: Reanimator), so the distinction would only matter if much better revival technology is available at the time of your trip.
Posted by: TGGP | April 27, 2008 at 12:12 PM
TGGP,
1. Our revival technology doesn't have to be sufficiently good now if our preservation technology is sufficient to prevent information-theoretic death (whether it is or not is unclear to me -and to at least some of the experts).
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous | April 27, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Back Of Airplane Safest Place In Accidents
Risk statistics: Amtrak and air travel are about the same. Auto travel is 10-20 times as dangerous per passenger-mile as either. I doubt an air accident is 10-20 times as likely to informationally kill you as a car accident, but it's probably more so, and rail probably isn't, so Amtrak seems safest when feasible.
Cryonics seems to me very likely to prevent information-theoretic death if used reasonably rapidly, but what do I know.
Posted by: Nick Tarleton | April 28, 2008 at 01:40 PM