"Will Pearson: Shut up and multiply. 150K/day adds up to about 3B after 60 years, which is a conservatively high estimate for how long we need. Heads have a volume of a few liters, call it 3.33 for convenience, so that's 10M cubic meters. Cooling involves massive economies of scale, as only surfaces matter. All we are talking about is, assuming a hemispherical facility, 168 meters of radius and 267,200 square meters of surface area. Not a lot to insulate. One small power plant could easily power the maintenance of such a facility at liquid nitrogen temperatures.
Michael Vassar - you've also assumed here that the number "150K/day" is going to remain constant over the next 60 years: it's going to increase.
I'm serious. Otherwise you'll buy lottery tickets because some version of you wins, make inconsistent choices on the Allais paradox, choose SPECKS over TORTURE...
Eliezer - I'm largely unconvinced by MWI, or at your interpretation. But I'm not going try to argue it here.
You're a great writer, you're clever, and very quick. But you haven't got a clue about morality. Your torture-over-specks conclusion, and the line of argument which was used to reach it, is cripplingly flawed. And every time you repeat it, you delude minds.
"Will Pearson: Shut up and multiply. 150K/day adds up to about 3B after 60 years, which is a conservatively high estimate for how long we need. Heads have a volume of a few liters, call it 3.33 for convenience, so that's 10M cubic meters. Cooling involves massive economies of scale, as only surfaces matter. All we are talking about is, assuming a hemispherical facility, 168 meters of radius and 267,200 square meters of surface area. Not a lot to insulate. One small power plant could easily power the maintenance of such a facility at liquid nitrogen temperatures.
Michael Vassar - you've also assumed here that the number "150K/day" is going to remain constant over the next 60 years: it's going to increase.
I'm serious. Otherwise you'll buy lottery tickets because some version of you wins, make inconsistent choices on the Allais paradox, choose SPECKS over TORTURE...
Eliezer - I'm largely unconvinced by MWI, or at your interpretation. But I'm not going try to argue it here.
You're a great writer, you're clever, and very quick. But you haven't got a clue about morality. Your torture-over-specks conclusion, and the line of argument which was used to reach it, is cripplingly flawed. And every time you repeat it, you delude minds.