In your opinion, would a resurrection/afterlife change this equation at all?


Yes, an afterlife transforms death (at least relatively low-pain deaths) into something that's really not that bad. It's sad in the sense you won't see a person for a while, but that's not remotely on the level of a person being totally obliterated, which is my current interpretation of death on the basis that I see no compelling evidence for an afterlife. Considering that one's mental processes continuing after the brain ceases to function would rely on some mechanism unknown to our current understanding of reality, I would want considerable evidence to consider an afterlife plausible.

To answer your thought experiment - it depends. For myself, almost certainly. Some friends and family I have discussed cryonics with have expressed little to no interest in living beyond the "normal" biological amount of time. I think they are misguided, but I would not presume to choose this for them. Those who have expressed interest in cryonics I would probably sign up. However, I think your analogy may break down in that it seems an omnipotent god should not need immense suffering to bring people to an afterlife. I don't think a god need prevent all suffering to be good or benevolent, but I think there is a level of unjust suffering a good god would not allow.

I had a really hard time double cruxing this, because I don't actually feel at all uncertain about the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent god. I realized partway through that I wasn't doing a good job arguing both sides and stopped there. I'm posting this comment anyway, in case it makes for useful discussion.

You attribute god both benevolence and omnipotence, which I think is extremely difficult to square with the world we inhabit, in which natural disasters kill and injure thousands, in which children are born with debilitating diseases, and good people die young in accidents that were no fault of their own. One can of course come up with a myriad of possible explanations for these observations, but I think they are a sharp departure from what a naive mind would expect to see in a world created by an all-powerful benevolent being. I'm trying to come up with explanations of these that don't feel completely forced. The best I can come up with is the idea of a divine plan in which the events allow people to fulfill their destiny and become who they are meant to be. Yet, while such might make for good storytelling, I don't think they actually improve the lives of people these things happen to.

Relatedly, you have the problem of human evil. I think the standard reply is that God gives humans the free will to choose good or evil so that He may judge them. I would contend that free will only produces evil in beings created by God insofar as their creator designed them in such a way that they would often choose to do evil things given the world in which they are placed (e.g. why does God make pedophiles?).

Another consideration is the intense competition that exists in the world between all life forms for limited resources does not approximate what I think one would naively expect of a singular God, but looks much more like multiple opposed forces acting against one another. This would at least seem to favor polytheism over monotheism, but given the simpler explanation of evolution, I think neither is necessary. I think Eliezer made this point better 

The Problem with Giving Advice

Agree, I think the problem definitely gets amplified by power or status differentials. 

I do think that people often forget to think critically about all kinds of things because their brain just decides to accept it on the 5 second level and doesn't promote the issue as needing thorough consideration. I find all kinds of poorly justified "facts"/advice in my mind because of something I read or someone said that I failed to properly consider.

Even when someone does take the time to think about advice though I think it's easy for things to go wrong. The reason someone is asking for advice may be that they simply do not have the expertise to evaluate claims about challenge X on their own merits. Another possibility is that someone can realize the advice is good for them but overcorrect, essentially trading one problem for another. 

The Problem with Giving Advice

The main thing people fail to consider when giving advice is that advice isn't what's wanted.

I fully agree, this post was trying to get at what happens when people do want advice and thus may take bad advice.


Advice comes with no warranty. If some twit injures themselves doing what I told them to (wrongly) then that's 100% on them.

I think in some cases this is generally a fair stance (though I think I would still like to prevent people from misapplying my advice if possible), but if you are in a position of power or influence over someone I'm not sure it applies (e.g. sports coaches telling all their players to work harder and not taking the time to make sure that some of them aren't being pushed to overtraining by this advice).  


Failing all of that, say "What choice would you make if I wasn't here?" and then barring them saying something outlandish you just say "Then do that". One way or another they'll get better at thinking for themselves.

That sounds like a very reasonable approach.


I think the metaphor of "fast-forwarding" is a very useful way to view a lot of my behavior. Having thought about this for a while though, I'm not sure fast-forwarding is always a bad thing. I find it can be mentally rejuvenating in a way that introspection is not (e.g. if I've been working for a long period and my brain is getting tired I can often quickly replenish my mental resources by watching a short video or reading a chapter of a fantasy novel after which I'm able to begin working again, whereas I find sitting and reflecting to still require some mental energy).

Of course, this is an important habit to keep an eye on. I sometimes find myself almost unconsciously opening youtube when I don't actually need a break which I've been trying to get myself to stop doing.  

Hammers and Nails

Favorite technique: Argue with yourself about your conclusions.

By which I mean if I have any reasonable doubt about some idea, belief, or plan I split my mind into two debaters who take opposite sides of the issue, each of which wants to win and I use my natural competitiveness to drive insight into an issue. 

I think the accustomed use of this would be investigating my deeply held beliefs and trying to get to their real weak points, but it is also useful for:

  1. Examining my favored explanation of a set of data
  2. Figuring out whether I need to change the way I'm presenting a set of data after I have already sunk costs into making the visualizations
  3. Understanding my partner's perspective after an argument.
  4. Preparing for expected real life arguments
  5. Force myself to understand an issue better, even when I don't expect I will change my mind about it.
  6. Questioning whether the way I acted in a situation was acceptable.
  7. An exercise in analytic thinking.
  8. Evaluating two plausible arguments I've heard but don't have any particularly strong feelings on
  9. Deciding whether to make a purchase
  10. Comparing two alternative plans
Avoid Unnecessarily Political Examples

I think the idea is that you can learn rationality techniques that can be applied to politics much more easily by using examples that are not political.

What to make of Aubrey de Grey's prediction?

So to clarify, I think there is merit in his approach of trying to engineer solutions to age related pathology. However, I do not think it will work for all aspects of aging right now. Aubrey believes that all the damage caused by aging are problems that we can begin solving right now. I would suspect that some are hard problems that will require a better understanding of the biological mechanisms involved before we can treat them.

So my position is that aging, like many fields, should be investigated both at the basic biology level and the from the perspective of trying to design therapeutics, because you don’t know if you can fix problems with current knowledge unless you try. However, if you fail to adequately treat the condition you want basic research to be ongoing.

What to make of Aubrey de Grey's prediction?
Answer by RossinFeb 28, 202017

As someone who works in biological science, I give the claim very little credence. I am someone who is very interested in Aubrey's anti-aging ideas and when I bring up aging with colleagues, it is considered to be a problem that will not be solved for a long time. Public opinion usually takes 3 to 5 years to catch up to scientific consensus, and there is no kind of scientific consensus about this. That said, the idea of not having to get old does excite people a lot more than many other scientific discoveries so it might percolate into mainstream much faster than other ideas. Still my sense is that the overwhelming majority of scientists are not on board, which will make it very unlikely for this shift in public perception to happen.

Further, I do not know why he would expect the public to care this much about the issue that it would be impossible to be elected without it. It's not like there's huge electoral pressure to increase spending on cancer or heart disease research, which are diseases that essentially everyone is impacted by (directly or indirectly). The idea that there will be huge pressure for aging research seems absurdly over-optimistic.

So I would give this claim very little credence personally despite the fact that I do think we can at least make major strides into treating age-related pathology within the coming decades if it receives sufficient funding.

Book Review: The Secret Of Our Success

I think a very interesting aspect of this idea is that it explains why it can be so hard to come up with truly original ideas, while it is much easier to copy or slightly tweak the ideas of other people. Slight tweaks were probably less likely to get you killed, whereas doing something completely novel could be very dangerous. And while it might have a huge payoff, everyone else in the group could then copy you (due to imitation being our greatest strength as a species) so the original idea creator would not have gained much of a comparative advantage in most cases.

Load More