{"items": [{"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1352558367"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1352558761"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/460017604049454?comment_id=460031737381374", "anchor": "fb-460031737381374", "service": "fb", "text": "@Justin: \"if we're discounting future lives by the interest rate\"
Why would you do that?", "timestamp": "1352559897"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/460017604049454?comment_id=460032170714664", "anchor": "fb-460032170714664", "service": "fb", "text": "@Justin: \"isn't every person alive today simply depleting resources that could be used to keep people alive in the future?\"
Potentially. In which case charities that primarily reduce suffering would be better.", "timestamp": "1352559982"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/460017604049454?comment_id=460032907381257", "anchor": "fb-460032907381257", "service": "fb", "text": "(Though while the AMF does save lives I think it mostly doesn't have much of an effect on the total number of people because people tend to adjust their birth rate based on the survival rate of their kids. It does have a large effect on reducing suffering, though, both because malaria causes a lot of suffering directly even when it doesn't kill and because having people close to you die is very painful.)", "timestamp": "1352560111"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/460017604049454?comment_id=460065800711301", "anchor": "fb-460065800711301", "service": "fb", "text": "An interesting exercise. But I find the facilitating concept of mapping minds to be so absorbing, that I do not feel inclined to speculate about how that information would affect the future. And besides, projecting minds into the future already exists. It's called books. Cluttering up the data stream with an argument with a spouse or remembering a grocery list has low marginal utility.", "timestamp": "1352565760"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1352589921"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/460017604049454?comment_id=460217337362814", "anchor": "fb-460217337362814", "service": "fb", "text": "@Justin: the \"invest now and give later\" approach may be better, I'm not sure. It depends on how we expect giving opportunities to change over time, and whether we can give now in ways that have exponential impacts.", "timestamp": "1352598538"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1352610226170", "service": "gp", "text": "A question-- imagine trillions of minds are eventually being simulated, all reasonably happy. A good situation. Suppose our mind-simulating technology improves so that we could actually simulate many many more minds. But the new minds would have to run on the same hardware, so the olds ones must be terminated to make room for the more efficiently-run minds. (assume that no one else knows or cares particularly about any of the minds that will be terminated)\n
\n
\nIs this a good thing to do?\n
\n
\nI find maximizing total utility pretty on intuitive, so I'm trying to press on it a bit, in a way that relates to this post. (since I think probably preserving current minds is better than simulating new ones)", "timestamp": 1352610226}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1352610617876", "service": "gp", "text": "@David Chudzicki\n\u00a0\"the new minds would have to run on the same hardware, so the olds ones must be terminated to make room for the more efficiently-run minds\"\n
\n
\nI think it's probably ok. \u00a0A while ago I phrased this as [1] \"a death is bad because of the effect it has on those that remain and because it removes the possibilty for future joy on the part of the deceased\" and I still think that's true (though I'm somewhat less certain than before).\n
\n
\n[1] \nhttp://www.jefftk.com/news/2012-04-14", "timestamp": 1352610617}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1352652508133", "service": "gp", "text": "Thanks, that's what I figured. I find it fairly unintuitive.", "timestamp": 1352652508}]}