From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Fri Jun 18 1999 - 08:16:13 MDT
Doug Bailey <Doug.Bailey@ey.com> writes:
> I often have to defend my lifestyle habits in the context of my
> transhumanist ideas. I exercise, watch my diet, wear my seat belt,
> no sunbathing, etc. A few people have asked me why care about my
> cholesterol intake is or whether I get skin cancer when I believe
> that MNT, uploading, etc. may be developed in the near future.
>
> My response is that while I believe such technologies are virtually
> certain to be developed at some point, I don't know when that will
> be. By maximizing my lifespan, I increase the probability that
> I will be able to benefit from these advance technologies.
Exactly my view too. Of course, living a healthy life doesn't mean
being an ascetic, and one has to strike a balance between pleasure and
health sometimes (e.g. I use too much caffeine and enjoy the
occasional huge meal, but it is worth it).
What I find a bit disturbing is the "Nanotech Santa will fix it
all"-meme. It is often not based on any serious estimation of when
sufficiently good nanotechnology will arrive and in what health state
one will be at that point, and to outsiders it sounds far too
religious to inspire confidence in transhumanism. Everybody has to
determine their lifestyle for themselves, but it better be a rational
choice (even if it involves a large risk).
One can view it as an optimization problem. You can select v(t), the
amount of "vices" (i.e. harmful but pleasant stuff) you indulge in
over time. That will of course accumulate until L(T(t),V(t)), the
maximal lifespan possible given a certain technological level T(t) and
total amount of vice (V(t) = integral of v(t) from 0 to t).
So the total amount of pleasure achieved from vices (I don't count all
the healthy pleasures) is a function P(V(t)) of V(t), and for a
lifespan up to t_max you get P(V(t_max)) where t_max is the first
solution of L(T(t_max),V(t_max)) = t_max.
If we make some assumptions that T(t) increases like c_1 exp(c_2 t)
and L(t)=75+ exp (c1 t) - V(t) (where c1 is a constant of how fast
tech advances lifespan), then the equation for lifespan becomes
75 + exp(c1 t_max) - integral_0^t_max v(t) = t_max
If we further assume people hold a constant pleasure level we get
75 + exp(c1 t_max) - v*t_max = t_max which gives
(1+v) t_max = 75+exp(c1 t_max)
Even if you live a perfectly "virtuous" life (v=0), you will die
eventually if c1 is too small. In this case, we can assume c1 to be
close to zero and the total pleasure over life P(t_max) = v * 76/(1+v),
which increases with v - life fast and die young.
But if c1 is large enough, then the above equation may lack a
solution. That means that for sufficiently low v, you can life forever
and the total pleasure over life will diverge. In fact, in this case
the optimal strategy would be to first choose a v just large enough
for the curve (1+v)*t to be tangent to 75+exp(c1 t), and after this
point increase v exponentially. A more cautious person might chose a
somewhat lower v.
So if we are believers in the high value of c1, we should be
relatively careful until lifespans start to expand greatly, and then
go for heavy duty hedonism. If we believe c1 is not large enough,
well, après nous le déluge...
OK, this is a game with equations and not to be taken that
seriously. But the field of hedonic planning is clearly well worth
investigating, if only just for fun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:14 MST