h+ Magazine

The Transhumanist Wager: Can We and Should We Defeat Death?

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #24019

    The Transhumanist Wager, brainchild of noted transhumanist Zoltan Istvan, can be understood as follows. If one loves and values their life, then they will want (the option) to live as long as possible. How do they achieve this?

    [See the full post at: The Transhumanist Wager: Can We and Should We Defeat Death?]


    The problem is of course this seemingly ignores the usual refutations to the original Pascal’s Wager, i.e. as discussed here: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm

    “The original version of Pascal’s wager fails to handle probabilities, since it states that both theism and atheism are equally reasonable.”

    So, in relation to transhumanism, you have to consider the probabilities that any of these ideas are plausible or might work. The right decision depends strongly on what you assume about the probabilities. For example, is a benevolent or malevolent future more probable for the cryonic traveler? As presented you are suggesting these futures are equally probable.

    It seems we can be reasonably certain that whatever the probabilities are, they aren’t really equal. The original wager and the transhumanist version both fail to take this into account.

    Cryonics makes sense if you are betting on a benevolent future and cryonicists should be very interested in ensuring that we converge to such a world too. But if you assume a negative outcome, a malevolent future, you might make a very different choice.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.