Decision Theory of Life and Death
It's one thing to place a bet where in one case, you die. It is another to place a bet based upon the certainty that you will.
In the seventeenth century, a scientist debated theism in decision theoretic terms.1 Essentially, he argued that believing in a deity and behaving with that belief in mind incurred finite costs (don’t eat that bacon cheeseburger, don’t sleep with that attractive person, wake up and listen to someone in odd clothing chant about some old books, etc.). On the other hand (in Tevye’s voice), forgoing belief in said deity if they exist incurs infinite costs (fire, brimstone, looped reruns of mediocre 90s rom-coms, all for an interminable period). Moreover, believing in the deity and forsaking the porcine delicacies and attractive persons yields a chance at heaven. Thus, given the possibility of infinite upside (eternal life) and finite downside (a few lost opportunities for meat, sex, and unscheduled weekend mornings), one would be a fool to sin, given the relative disparity in outcomes.
The modern version of that debate pressures individuals to cryopreserve themselves upon their death. If you subscribe to the general notion that life tends to improve with the course of human history, then maximizing your probability of experiencing post-singularity days should be a no-brainer:
Once upon a time, infant deaths were part of the plan, and now they're not. Once upon a time, slavery was part of the plan, and now it's not. Once upon a time, dying at thirty was part of the plan, and now it's not. That's a psychological shift, not just an increase in living standards. Our era doesn't value human life with perfect consistency - but the value of human life is higher than it once was.
-Eliezer Yudkowsy, “You Only Live Twice”
Fine, maybe you think the current probability of any of these technologies successfully preserving the remains of a recently-deceased human is minimal. If so, you will have spent a few hundred dollars per annum unnecessarily. There’s the “finite cost” - literally a calculable sum, with any time-value-of-money assumptions you like, sure to make your economics professor giddy (or at least as giddy as an economics professor can be without an equation somewhere nearby). And besides, you’ll be no more dead than you would have been otherwise. Also, assuming your impending demise is at least a few years off, it is likely that the probability of success will increase. After all, a 12-second flight along a beach led to a moon landing in ~66 years.2
Maybe you think the world to come will be an intolerable amalgam of polarized political discourse and reality television with some global warming for good measure. May I remind you that medieval medicine consisted of barbaric barber bloodletting and no iPhones to surf the internet while you awaited the bubonic plague? Given these facts, consider that there is almost no century in history in which most of humanity would have chosen to live in the previous century. However, in almost every century throughout history, given the knowledge and the choice, humans would have chosen to live in the next. And even if the future into which you emerge is some Orwellian horror, at worst, you could always take another “cooling off period” (kinda like Wesley in the Princess Bride, except they freeze you in the morning?). At that point, you’ll retain the probability of encountering some future state of infinite upside. Those odds fall to zero in an information theoretic sense after the whole “ashes to ashes, dust to dust” thing.
At AE, we remain optimistic about the future, specifically one in which we have a hand. Our work in developing brain computer interface (BCI) technology will ameliorate the suffering of those with paralyzed limbs using the electrical activity of their own minds. Our work on blockchain technology will democratize finance and create new economies in which human beings can participate on a global scale. To [mis]quote the nerd anthems of Jonathan Coulton, “...it’s gonna be the future soon, [it] won’t always be this way. When the things that make [us] weak and strange get engineered away…”. Deride the frustrations of modern, capitalistic life if you must, but we remain unshakably bullish on tomorrow - and if possible, aspire to survive long enough to observe and partake.
If all else fails, we can cite the wisdom of the neurotic, possibly problematic, but nonetheless insightful Woody Allen:
“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”
At AE, we’re all about increasing human agency. Dead humans have none. Living humans have infinitely more. Thus, the second coming of Pascal’s Wager seems to yield an even more lopsided utility-theory conclusion. Eat all the pork and have all the sex you want. Sleep in on the weekends. Just have a plan before you die!
Well, let us take this opportunity to announce such a plan. For employees of AE, that plan is provided - we will cover the costs of monthly term life insurance at their institution of choice (whichever they find the coolest...sorry...dad joke).3 In the spirit of maximizing human agency, our employees have the option to decline, just as all human beings may have other considerations regarding their corporal matter, religious or otherwise. Or perhaps they’re simply Yankees fans avoiding any possibility of a reanimated entry into a world containing a futuristic Ted Williams.
Emotions run hot and cold (sorry, couldn’t help myself) regarding discussion of life and death. Nonetheless, the same principles of utility theory can still guide decision-making. This debate began several centuries ago - now that debate points to a different conclusion. What do you think?
1 Pascal’s Wager. Incidentally, the argument contains a logical flaw insofar as it presumes that belief in any deity suffices. The world has produced hundreds, if not thousands of religions. If choosing the wrong god incurs the same cost as choosing no god, then even if the cost is still finite, the probability of the eternal reward drops rapidly!
2 A delightful quip captures our inability to predict, “I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years. Two years later we ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions.” - Wilbur Wright, accepting the Gold Medal from the Aero Club of France in 1908.
3 Those who depart AE (except if they leave for an agency-increasing Skunkworks startup they found through AE - we’ll cover costs while they’re there as well) will need to cover their costs thereafter, lest someone quits, some technology exists to extend telomeres, they live to be 200 years old, and AE is on the hook for a rather protracted annuity! Pascal was fine with “finite” costs, but our accountants have other considerations.
No one works with an agency just because they have a clever blog. To work with my colleagues, who spend their days developing software that turns your MVP into an IPO, rather than writing blog posts, click here (Then you can spend your time reading our content from your yacht / pied-a-terre). If you can’t afford to build an app, you can always learn how to succeed in tech by reading other essays.
Decision Theory of Life and Death
It's one thing to place a bet where in one case, you die. It is another to place a bet based upon the certainty that you will.
In the seventeenth century, a scientist debated theism in decision theoretic terms.1 Essentially, he argued that believing in a deity and behaving with that belief in mind incurred finite costs (don’t eat that bacon cheeseburger, don’t sleep with that attractive person, wake up and listen to someone in odd clothing chant about some old books, etc.). On the other hand (in Tevye’s voice), forgoing belief in said deity if they exist incurs infinite costs (fire, brimstone, looped reruns of mediocre 90s rom-coms, all for an interminable period). Moreover, believing in the deity and forsaking the porcine delicacies and attractive persons yields a chance at heaven. Thus, given the possibility of infinite upside (eternal life) and finite downside (a few lost opportunities for meat, sex, and unscheduled weekend mornings), one would be a fool to sin, given the relative disparity in outcomes.
The modern version of that debate pressures individuals to cryopreserve themselves upon their death. If you subscribe to the general notion that life tends to improve with the course of human history, then maximizing your probability of experiencing post-singularity days should be a no-brainer:
Once upon a time, infant deaths were part of the plan, and now they're not. Once upon a time, slavery was part of the plan, and now it's not. Once upon a time, dying at thirty was part of the plan, and now it's not. That's a psychological shift, not just an increase in living standards. Our era doesn't value human life with perfect consistency - but the value of human life is higher than it once was.
-Eliezer Yudkowsy, “You Only Live Twice”
Fine, maybe you think the current probability of any of these technologies successfully preserving the remains of a recently-deceased human is minimal. If so, you will have spent a few hundred dollars per annum unnecessarily. There’s the “finite cost” - literally a calculable sum, with any time-value-of-money assumptions you like, sure to make your economics professor giddy (or at least as giddy as an economics professor can be without an equation somewhere nearby). And besides, you’ll be no more dead than you would have been otherwise. Also, assuming your impending demise is at least a few years off, it is likely that the probability of success will increase. After all, a 12-second flight along a beach led to a moon landing in ~66 years.2
Maybe you think the world to come will be an intolerable amalgam of polarized political discourse and reality television with some global warming for good measure. May I remind you that medieval medicine consisted of barbaric barber bloodletting and no iPhones to surf the internet while you awaited the bubonic plague? Given these facts, consider that there is almost no century in history in which most of humanity would have chosen to live in the previous century. However, in almost every century throughout history, given the knowledge and the choice, humans would have chosen to live in the next. And even if the future into which you emerge is some Orwellian horror, at worst, you could always take another “cooling off period” (kinda like Wesley in the Princess Bride, except they freeze you in the morning?). At that point, you’ll retain the probability of encountering some future state of infinite upside. Those odds fall to zero in an information theoretic sense after the whole “ashes to ashes, dust to dust” thing.
At AE, we remain optimistic about the future, specifically one in which we have a hand. Our work in developing brain computer interface (BCI) technology will ameliorate the suffering of those with paralyzed limbs using the electrical activity of their own minds. Our work on blockchain technology will democratize finance and create new economies in which human beings can participate on a global scale. To [mis]quote the nerd anthems of Jonathan Coulton, “...it’s gonna be the future soon, [it] won’t always be this way. When the things that make [us] weak and strange get engineered away…”. Deride the frustrations of modern, capitalistic life if you must, but we remain unshakably bullish on tomorrow - and if possible, aspire to survive long enough to observe and partake.
If all else fails, we can cite the wisdom of the neurotic, possibly problematic, but nonetheless insightful Woody Allen:
“I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.”
At AE, we’re all about increasing human agency. Dead humans have none. Living humans have infinitely more. Thus, the second coming of Pascal’s Wager seems to yield an even more lopsided utility-theory conclusion. Eat all the pork and have all the sex you want. Sleep in on the weekends. Just have a plan before you die!
Well, let us take this opportunity to announce such a plan. For employees of AE, that plan is provided - we will cover the costs of monthly term life insurance at their institution of choice (whichever they find the coolest...sorry...dad joke).3 In the spirit of maximizing human agency, our employees have the option to decline, just as all human beings may have other considerations regarding their corporal matter, religious or otherwise. Or perhaps they’re simply Yankees fans avoiding any possibility of a reanimated entry into a world containing a futuristic Ted Williams.
Emotions run hot and cold (sorry, couldn’t help myself) regarding discussion of life and death. Nonetheless, the same principles of utility theory can still guide decision-making. This debate began several centuries ago - now that debate points to a different conclusion. What do you think?
1 Pascal’s Wager. Incidentally, the argument contains a logical flaw insofar as it presumes that belief in any deity suffices. The world has produced hundreds, if not thousands of religions. If choosing the wrong god incurs the same cost as choosing no god, then even if the cost is still finite, the probability of the eternal reward drops rapidly!
2 A delightful quip captures our inability to predict, “I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years. Two years later we ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions.” - Wilbur Wright, accepting the Gold Medal from the Aero Club of France in 1908.
3 Those who depart AE (except if they leave for an agency-increasing Skunkworks startup they found through AE - we’ll cover costs while they’re there as well) will need to cover their costs thereafter, lest someone quits, some technology exists to extend telomeres, they live to be 200 years old, and AE is on the hook for a rather protracted annuity! Pascal was fine with “finite” costs, but our accountants have other considerations.