How should I help us achieve immortality?

Under what circumstances, then, would you say that it would be a good idea for someone interested in bringing about human immortality to go into research?

Making real money takes a hell of a lot of drive; it's not something that's at all likely to be accomplished by following the steps

I think you're right, but many people here seem to disagree and it is quite likely I'm wrong; I haven't actually researched in detail how difficult it is do, say, financial trading. What evidence are you basing this on?

I think this account of marginal contribution is wrong. Here's a handwavy model to explain why.

Suppose there are N people in the world working on X, and you're the Mth best. And suppose (laughably) that every organization doing X hires exactly one person, the best person it can get. And (also laughably) that everyone works for the best organization they can, and that that's the one doing the most valuable work in X. Write A(n) for the importance of the nth-best organization's work and B(n) for the quality of the nth-best person's work.

OK. So the total utility we get is the sum of A(n) B(n). Now, suppose you weren't there. The organization employing you gets the next-best person instead, and then the next-best organization gets the next-next-best, etc. In other words, instead of A(1)B(1) + A(2)B(2) + ... + A(N)B(N) we get A(1)B(1) + ... + A(M-1)B(M-1) + A(M)B(M+1) + A(M+1)B(M+2) + etc. The total utility loss is therefore A(M)(B(M)-B(M+1)) + A(M+1)(B(M+1)-B(M+2)) + etc. The first term here is what James_Miller describes, but there are all the others too.

(Another way for the scenario to play out: Everyone's already employed; then you drop out and your employer has to hire ... whom? Not the next-best candidate, because s/he is already working for someone else. They'll get the (N+1)th-best candidate, not the (M+1)th-best. The most likely actual outcome is something intermediate between the one I described above and this one.)

Suppose, for instance, that the As and Bs obey a Zipf-like law: A(n) = 1/n, B(n) = 1/n. Then the utility loss is sum {M..N} of 1/n (1/n - 1/(n+1)) = sum {M..N} of 1/n^2(n+1) ~= 1/2 (1/M^2 - 1/N^2), whereas James_Miller's account gives about 1/M^3. If M is much smaller than N -- i.e., if you'd be one of the best in the field -- then James's figure for the utility loss is too small by a factor on the order of M. If M is comparable to N -- i.e., if you'd be towards the bottom of the pack -- then James's figure is too small by a factor on the order of N-M+1. In between, some slightly funny things happen. Other than right at the endpoints, it's a pretty good approximation to say that James's figure is too small by a factor of M(N-M)/N.

That's an excellent way to think about it. I had not considered it like that; it makes me feel less guilty about the possibility of going into finance!

However, intellectual contributions are not necessarily purchasable. That is, donating enough money for an organization to hire two mediocre scientists may not result in the insights of one slightly better scientist; margin size may not be linear. To paraphrase a quote from an article I've forgotten the rest of, "a hundred years of doggy living won't add up to one human insight."

Not to suggest I am so excellent as to make all other scientists look like dogs, of course. Rather, I feel that the insights of any one researcher are possibly unique. The example that comes to my mind is that of vulcanized rubber - discovered by accident. Who knows when it would have come about if Goodyear had gone into law instead? Who knows but that I might stumble on the Vulcanized Rubber of Immortality? In any case, a world where everyone researched immortality would be better than a world where one person researched it with the funds of everyone else.

Science is my true love and I don't think I shall abandon it, but finance is a little interesting. Do you suggest it just because financial careers come with high salaries, or do you think that understanding of finance means understanding how to manipulate money in order to become wealthy? I envisioned the latter for economics, but like I said, economists don't necessarily seem to be better investors than anyone else.

someone else to do it if you weren't around.

But how much money would that "someone else" otherwise have donated to immortality research, if they hadn't got the research job themselves?

Okay, I see what you meant by your original reply. My reply was based on the idea that you meant a total absence of technology might be preferable. If that seems like a ridiculous idea to you, well, it does to me too - and I'm confused and disgusted by the fact that I have spent a lot of time arguing against people who think that very thing: technology bad... all of it.

Why not?

I think it's a good idea for a few reasons. Mainly, that death is bad in the abstract, since there is no afterlife and it is the end of experience and thus happiness; and bad for me personally, since I don't think there is an afterlife and I want to continue to experience happiness. There is also the associated grief from those who loved the departed, and the decrepitude of age that makes life not worth living for some.

The only aspect of immortality I don't like is the population problem, and I have no reply for that; but I'm mainly concerned with those who oppose it on ideological grounds - like those who might say "death gives meaning to life". To which I say: what meaning? Are your experiences enhanced by the looming prospect of you and everyone you love ceasing to exist forever - or does this provide sadness and anxiety? For almost everyone, it is the latter. My life would seem even more* worthwhile if I did not have a mere ~76 years.

*(Even if you are religious, there is a chance you are wrong, so this is still a distinct possibility.)

To use an example of Eliezer's, if the benefit of death is so much greater than that of immortality, would an immortal want to die? Probably not, unless they were tired of life. And that, I can understand; when I say immortality, I really mean the ability to choose when you die. I object not to dying when one wishes to, if one ever does, but to the dying being forced upon us, with no concern for our desires. So the question becomes, would an immortal want to be subject to an arbitrary death date? I cannot imagine this ever being the case.

Of course, if you are a theist, then this argument would become about the afterlife. I would certainly question a God who sets up a system like this universe, but that's a different debate.

WBE earth years, yes? Not subjective ones?

Also, the difference between 200 years and 2^200 years enormous.

Yet when cast to a boolean is 'true' and when negated to equality instead of difference is 'false'. I suppose that kind of difference matters to people who, say, really don't want to ever die. The difference takes on a whole new meaning when it is the difference between (infinity - 200) and (infinity - 2^200)

Especially if we have a super-intelligence that is trying to make sure that the universe doesn't end.

The space of credible cosmologies where the will of even a super-intelligence from within the system being able to have an impact on that one way or the other seems comparatively small, does it not?

I haven't read a whole bunch on cosmology, but I don't think that that is entirely certain.

This seems to be your main objection and I think you're spot on.

Rethink that last paragraph.

1.) An objective assessment says nothing of their value and importance in the world, because value and importance are assigned by individuals for themselves.

2.) To say wanting immortality is overrating the importance of your own life is like saying that liking the color green is overrating the importance of your own artistic ability - totally nonsensical.

3.) Technological immortality is not just for oneself; I think it is probably rated so highly important because it is for everyone. Everyone must die, and any death is as tragic as any other: to think one must only care about immortality for one's own sake is fairly cynical.

4.) Finally, immortality is almost guaranteed to be more important than any other goal one could have. Anything else can be deferred and accomplished once you are immortal, but once you have died, that's it.

You should give this article a read-through, I think:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1yi/the_scourge_of_perversemindedness/

Insisting upon calling your own life unimportant is not rational, but perverse.

Fixed, thanks.

It's just not the end of the world.

Forgive me for saying the obvious, but death has indeed been the subjective end of the world for everyone not currently alive. If someone wants to save the world for the sake of its people (not just for its own sake), then it is needed that they don't die.

Well, as far as you know, it is the end of the world. Solipsism is a rationally defensible position, though I personally feel it's only worth keeping in mind to remind one of the limits of knowledge, and is not a philosophy that should actually govern behavior. (Thus this is intended as a comment only, not a refutation).

It's just not the end of the world.

Yeah it is. The end of the world for the person that's dying.