This is a fair objection. I should have been more rigorous, i.e. I've assumed a very high value-of-life, which still leaves me prone to Pascal's-mugging type ob

This is a fair objection. I should have been more rigorous, i.e. I've assumed a very high value-of-life, which still leaves me prone to Pascal's-mugging type objections (http://lesswrong.com/lw/kd/pascals_mugging_tiny_probabilities_of_vast/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/kd/pascals_mugging_tiny_probabilitie...). I think my argument can be modified to be defensible, but agree that the post does not reflect this as it stands.