So, I'm not quite sure what your question has to do with my comment, so I suspect we're talking past one another as far as "bigger pictures" go.
I was browsing the comments and it looked like the parent thread was about wireheading, but I only skimmed it, so I could be wrong.
...one possibility is that the person expects to spend the year earning enough extra cash ... so, they can afford to spend two years wireheading. ... Another possibility is that the person is committed to some project ... and they value the project sufficiently more than their own pleasure.
Right, in both cases, you're basically saying, "there's something else the person could be doing besides wireheading, and that course of action has a higher expected value than a year of wireheading". That's a perfectly reasonable answer.
But what if I extended my (imaginary) offer of wireheading to two years, or ten years, or the rest of the person's natural life ? In this case, your first objection (trading off time now for wireheading later) doesn't apply, but your second one (trading off your own pleasure for that of others) still does.
But what if we lived in a fictional post-scarcity world where everyone could pick between options (1) and (2) ? Are there still any rational reasons to pick (1) ?
The reason I ask is that most people here, myself included, have a strong aversion to wireheading; but I want to figure out if this aversion is rational, or due to some mental bias.
(shrug) Sure, if I live in a world where nothing I do can meaningfully advance anything which I value more than pleasure (either because I don't value anything more than pleasure, or because it's a post-scarcity world where I can't meaningfully add value along any other axis), and I value pleasure at all, then I ought to wirehead, since it's the possible act with the highest expected value.
Said more succinctly, if nothing else I do can matter, I might as well wirehead.
Relatedly, if we additionally posit that this fictional post-scarcity world is such that...
I was browsing my RSS feed, as one does, and came across a New York Times article, "A Village With the Numbers, Not the Image, of the Poorest Place", about the Satmar Hasidic Jews of Kiryas Joel (NY).
Their interest lies in their extraordinarily high birthrate & population growth, and their poverty - which are connected. From the article:
From Wikipedia:
Robin Hanson has argued that uploaded/emulated minds will establish a new Malthusian/Darwinian equilibrium in "IF UPLOADS COME FIRST: The crack of a future dawn" - an equilibrium in comparison to which our own economy will look like a delusive dreamtime of impossibly unfit and libertine behavior. The demographic transition will not last forever. But despite our own distaste for countless lives living at near-subsistence rather than our own extreme per-capita wealth (see the Repugnant Conclusion), those many lives will be happy ones (even amidst disaster).
So. Are the inhabitants of Kiryas Joel unhappy?