4 ms·

There's also absolute wealth: the sense in which virtually all Americans today are rich compared to virtually all Americans in 1900.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
Ah, in that case I wasted my time reading about how to get rich. I am already rich! :) But if you include all people living in past times wouldn't it be consistent to include all people who will live in the future? Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  "Compared to them we might all be very poor" Seriously, I think that's likely. "and there is no way for anyone to become rich." Well, living longer. Also, you may improve your chances a bit with cryonics. :)
  - dennisgorelik 17y ago
    Sorry, but cryonics is a scam. The chances of extending life using cryonics are so low, that any investment into cryonics would decrease you current quality of life, not improve it [by extending your life into future]. http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html
    - Eliezer 17y ago
      Answered in standard FAQs: http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics
      - arakyd 17y ago
        Actually those FAQs do not challenge the central point of that blog post, which is that reasonable people can have wildly different estimates of the likelihood of successful preservation and reconstruction, and that most people judge it too much of a long shot to be worth the money. Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success (I'll make an exception for Robin Hansen), and would rather talk about the importance of participation and securing more funding based on the fact that the probability of success is non-zero, and pro-life-esque ethical arguments about the value of human life.
        Eliezer 17y ago
        Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success Sounds simply wrong to me, and I know a lot of cryonics advocates. The ones I know try to explain why current vitrification technology ought to preserve neural microstructure. Others work on better vitrification technology. I really don't know where you're getting this from.
        arakyd 17y ago
        Sorry, it would be more accurate to restrict that to "Based on the above FAQs and other discussions on Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong, cryonics advocates don't seem...." From http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html#_VQ_ http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html#_VQ_: What is the chance that cryonics will work ? The chance that cryonics will work depends greatly upon the conditions under which a person is cryopreserved. [...] Probability estimates of future technology cannot be anything other than guesswork, although molecular repair technology does appear to be inevitable. [...] Rather than passively attempting to calculate probability, a person is better advised to realized that preparation to prevent potential problems will greatly affect the probability of success for that person and his/her loved-ones. The chance that cryonics will work also depends greatly upon how much money and effort is put into the technologies and organizational enhancements that can make cryonics work. [...] From http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm: What can scientists disagree on about cryonics? [...] The likelihood that technologies capable of the required analysis, repair, and tissue regeneration will be developed. The practicality of maintaining cryopreserved people long enough for such technologies to be developed. [...] The ethics of not cryopreserving people until cryonics is proven to work. There certainly is plenty of discussion about vitrification, but that is a relatively small part of the equation. Looking at Robin Hansen's post again, he links another breakdown of the total chance of success at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html. These are the only two attempts I know of, and they do a pretty good job of showing how speculative the whole thing is and how much variation that produces in the estimates.
- revorad 17y ago
  Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich. Not sure about that. See this paper by Robin Hanson: http://hanson.gmu.edu/IEEESpectrum-6-08.pdf http://hanson.gmu.edu/IEEESpectrum-6-08.pdf
  - pfedor 17y ago
    Haven't read the full paper, but this caught my eye: The world economy, which now doubles in 15 years, would soon double in a week to a month According to the book "The Birth of Plenty" by William J. Bernstein, the world's wealth has been growing at a steady rate of 2% since 1820. Not sure where the disagreement comes from. Maybe the author of the article doesn't make a correction for inflation?
    - revorad 17y ago
      This talk may shed some light (see from the 34min mark). http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7034028366249083385&ei=Dz1KSpOtGMed-Aa_t4DNAQ&q=robin+hanson+tomorrow+people&hl=en http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-70340283662490833...

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

Ah, in that case I wasted my time reading about how to get rich. I am already rich! :) But if you include all people living in past times wouldn't it be consistent to include all people who will live in the future? Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich.

randallsquared 17y ago
"Compared to them we might all be very poor" Seriously, I think that's likely. "and there is no way for anyone to become rich." Well, living longer. Also, you may improve your chances a bit with cryonics. :)
- dennisgorelik 17y ago
  Sorry, but cryonics is a scam. The chances of extending life using cryonics are so low, that any investment into cryonics would decrease you current quality of life, not improve it [by extending your life into future]. http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html
  - Eliezer 17y ago
    Answered in standard FAQs: http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics
    - arakyd 17y ago
      Actually those FAQs do not challenge the central point of that blog post, which is that reasonable people can have wildly different estimates of the likelihood of successful preservation and reconstruction, and that most people judge it too much of a long shot to be worth the money. Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success (I'll make an exception for Robin Hansen), and would rather talk about the importance of participation and securing more funding based on the fact that the probability of success is non-zero, and pro-life-esque ethical arguments about the value of human life.
      - Eliezer 17y ago
        Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success Sounds simply wrong to me, and I know a lot of cryonics advocates. The ones I know try to explain why current vitrification technology ought to preserve neural microstructure. Others work on better vitrification technology. I really don't know where you're getting this from.
        arakyd 17y ago
        Sorry, it would be more accurate to restrict that to "Based on the above FAQs and other discussions on Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong, cryonics advocates don't seem...." From http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html#_VQ_ http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html#_VQ_: What is the chance that cryonics will work ? The chance that cryonics will work depends greatly upon the conditions under which a person is cryopreserved. [...] Probability estimates of future technology cannot be anything other than guesswork, although molecular repair technology does appear to be inevitable. [...] Rather than passively attempting to calculate probability, a person is better advised to realized that preparation to prevent potential problems will greatly affect the probability of success for that person and his/her loved-ones. The chance that cryonics will work also depends greatly upon how much money and effort is put into the technologies and organizational enhancements that can make cryonics work. [...] From http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm: What can scientists disagree on about cryonics? [...] The likelihood that technologies capable of the required analysis, repair, and tissue regeneration will be developed. The practicality of maintaining cryopreserved people long enough for such technologies to be developed. [...] The ethics of not cryopreserving people until cryonics is proven to work. There certainly is plenty of discussion about vitrification, but that is a relatively small part of the equation. Looking at Robin Hansen's post again, he links another breakdown of the total chance of success at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html. These are the only two attempts I know of, and they do a pretty good job of showing how speculative the whole thing is and how much variation that produces in the estimates.
revorad 17y ago
Compared to them we might all be very poor and there is no way for anyone to become rich. Not sure about that. See this paper by Robin Hanson: http://hanson.gmu.edu/IEEESpectrum-6-08.pdf http://hanson.gmu.edu/IEEESpectrum-6-08.pdf
- pfedor 17y ago
  Haven't read the full paper, but this caught my eye: The world economy, which now doubles in 15 years, would soon double in a week to a month According to the book "The Birth of Plenty" by William J. Bernstein, the world's wealth has been growing at a steady rate of 2% since 1820. Not sure where the disagreement comes from. Maybe the author of the article doesn't make a correction for inflation?
  - revorad 17y ago
    This talk may shed some light (see from the 34min mark). http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7034028366249083385&ei=Dz1KSpOtGMed-Aa_t4DNAQ&q=robin+hanson+tomorrow+people&hl=en http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-70340283662490833...