Why Not Egg Futures?

Older women often find themselves too old to have kids, and regretting it. Such women would have gained by freezing some eggs when they were younger. But when younger, they didn’t think they’d ever want kids, or thought the issue could wait.

Such women might be helped by an egg futures business, paid to take on this risk for them. Such a business could buy eggs from women when young, freeze them, and sell them back to these same women when old.

Of course, to compensate for the wait and risk that the women wouldn’t want eggs later, this business would have to sell eggs back a high price. But still, if the women bought the egg later, that would show they expected to gain from the deal.

Also, not all women would make equally good prospects. So such a business would focus on women likely to wait too long, be well off, and want kids later. So this business would “discriminate” by class in its purchases, paying more to upper class women. A lot like we now discriminate when we pay more for used clothes, cars, or houses from richer people.

Several people have told me that, while they were not personally offended, they expect others to be offended by such a business. Especially if men were involved in the business – a female only business would offend less. I’m somewhat mystified, which is partly why I’m writing this post. Maybe others can help me understand the objection.

Interestingly, we could add some personal prediction markets, which would probably be legal. For each possible young woman, there could be a market where one buys and sells conditional shares in an egg from that customer. If you owned a conditional share, you’d own a share of the profit from later selling that customer her egg. And you’d owe a share of the cost to buy her egg from her, freeze it, and store it. Imagine the fun buying and selling conditional shares regarding the young women that you know. And the fact that this is a share of a real physical object should make it legal.

Ok, I can see how people might be offended at this last suggestion. After all, there’s a risk that people might have fun on something that is supposed to be serious! ;)

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Em Software Engineering Bleg

Many software engineers read this blog, and I’d love to include a section on software engineering in my book on ems. But as my software engineering expertise is limited, I ask you, dear software engineer readers, for help.

“Ems” are future brain emulations. I’m writing a book on em social implications. Ems would substitute for human workers, and once ems were common ems would do almost all work, including software engineering. What I seek are reasonable guesses on the tools and patterns of work of em software engineers – how their tools and work patterns would differ from those today, and how those would vary with time and along some key dimensions.

Here are some reasonable premises to work from:

  1. Software would be a bigger part of the economy, and a bigger industry overall. So it could support more specialization and pay more fixed costs.
  2. Progress would have been made in the design of tools, languages, hardware, etc. But there’d still be far to go to automate all tasks; more income would still go to rent ems than to rent other software.
  3. After an initial transition where em wages fall greatly relative to human wages, em hardware costs would thereafter fall about as fast as non-em computer hardware costs. So the relative cost to rent ems and other computer hardware would stay about the same over time. This is in stark contrast to today when hardware costs fall fast relative to human wages.
  4. Hardware speed will not rise as fast as hardware costs fall. Thus the cost advantage of parallel software would continue to rise.
  5. Emulating brains is a much more parallel task than are most software tasks today.
  6. Ems would typically run about a thousand times human mind speed, but would vary over a wide range of speeds. Ems in software product development races would run much faster.
  7. It would be possible to save a copy of an em engineer who just wrote some software, a copy available to answer questions about it, or to modify it.
  8. Em software engineers could sketch out a software design, and then split into many temporary copies who each work on a different part of the design, and talk with each other to negotiate boundary issues. (I don’t assume one could merge the copies afterward.)
  9. Most ems are crammed into a few dense cities. Toward em city centers, computing hardware is more expensive, and maximum hardware speeds are lower. Away from city centers, there are longer communication delays.

Again, the key question is: how would em software tools and work patterns differ from today’s, and how would they vary with time, application, software engineer speed, and city location?

To give you an idea of the kind of conclusions one might be tempted to draw, here are some recent suggestions of François-René Rideau: Continue reading "Em Software Engineering Bleg" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Why We Believe

Long ago, I first believed in religion as a young kid because I believed what I was told. Then I also believed because religious claims seemed to explain the strong emotions that religious contexts induced. This is how religion works – you feel strong emotions due to candles, buildings, clothes, music, well crafted and button-pushing words, charismatic empathetic leaders, social support and status. And if respected leaders and supporters around you then claim that your emotions are caused by God, well that makes sense. Even though many religious claims are transparently crazy, at least to people who well understand the world, they are easy for the young or inexpert to accept.

Recently while watching an emotional movie with political and moral overtones, I was reminded that the same is true for art. Art can make us feel strong emotions via all the same mechanisms. When high status artists and art supporters around us tell us these emotions are caused by our recognizing the emotional truth of art’s moral, political, and legal claims, that can make sense to us. Yet most of the channels by which art makes us feel emotions are irrelevant to the truth of its key claims. When we come to see this, we usually make excuses and tell ourselves that we aren’t fooled by all that other stuff; we really are just evaluating only the key moral/political/legal arguments. But the many correlations we see between features of art and who is persuaded when make it hard to believe this applies to most people most of the time.

The same likely also holds for essays like this one, or academic papers. While such writings may contain logical arguments, they also transmit writing styles, author charisma, status, and impressiveness, and clues about who supports or opposes them. You might think that you correct for all those influences when you read such writings and evaluate their claims, but the patterns above in religion and art suggest this is unlikely. The fact that people aren’t very interested in the accuracy of their pundits suggests we usually give a high priority to presentation style.

Could we do better? On subjects that have implications for future observations we could use prediction markets. But what about other subjects? Well, we might try to control for presentation variation by having a group of neutral writers rewrite common arguments in a standard style. That is, a single neutral writer could present all the different arguments on some subject, all using the same writing style. Readers of such presentations would have a better chance of drawing conclusions on each subject based on the logic of arguments, instead of writing styles. The fact that we aren’t very interested in these sort of presentations suggests that we aren’t very interested in reducing the influence of other writing style related factors.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

More Whales Please

I was struck by this quote in the paper cited in my last post:

The biosphere considered as a whole has managed to expand the amount of solar energy captured for metabolism to around 5%, limited by the nonuniform presence of key nutrients across the Earth’s surface — primarily fresh water, phosphorus, and nitrogen. Life on Earth is not free-energy-limited because, up until recently, it has not had the intelligence and mega-engineering to distribute Earth’s resources to all of the places solar energy happens to fall, and so it is, in most places, nutrient-limited. (more)

That reminded me of reading earlier this year about how whale poop was once a great nutrient distributor:

A couple of centuries ago, the southern seas were packed with baleen whales. Blue whales, the biggest creatures on Earth, were a hundred times more plentiful than they are today. Biologists couldn’t understand how whales could feed themselves in such an iron-poor environment. And now we may have an answer: Whales are extraordinary recyclers. What whales consume (which is a lot), they give back. (more)

It seems we should save (and expand) the whales because of their huge positive externality on other fish. If humans manage to increase the fraction of solar energy used by life on Earth, it will be primarily because of trade and transport. Transport gives us the ability to move lots of nutrients, and trade gives us the incentives to move them.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:

Good Job Templeton

Whatever else the Templeton Foundation may have done wrong, they have done very right by funding the research behind two new papers, to appear in the Astrophysical Journal. The first paper reviews what evidence of aliens we should expect to see:

We motivate the \^G infrared search for extraterrestrial civilizations with large energy supplies. We discuss some philosophical difficulties of SETI, and how communication SETI circumvents them. We review “Dysonian SETI”, the search for artifacts of alien civilizations, and find that it is highly complementary to traditional communication SETI; the two together might succeed where either one, alone, has not. We discuss the argument of Hart (1975) that spacefaring life in the Milky Way should be either galaxy-spanning or non-existent, and examine a portion of his argument that we dub the “monocultural fallacy”. We discuss some rebuttals to Hart that invoke sustainability and predict long Galaxy colonization timescales. We find that the maximum Galaxy colonization timescale is actually much shorter than previous work has found (<109 yr), and that many “sustainability” counter-arguments to Hart’s thesis suffer from the monocultural fallacy. We extend Hart’s argument to alien energy supplies, and argue that detectably large energy supplies can plausibly be expected to exist because life has potential for exponential growth until checked by resource or other limitations, and intelligence implies the ability to overcome such limitations. As such, if Hart’s thesis is correct then searches for large alien civilizations in other galaxies may be fruitful; if it is incorrect, then searches for civilizations within the Milky Way are more likely to succeed than Hart argued. We review some past Dysonian SETI efforts, and discuss the promise of new mid-infrared surveys, such as that of WISE. (more)

The second paper describes a plan to look for some key evidence:

We describe the framework and strategy of the \^G infrared search for extraterrestrial civilizations with large energy supplies, which will use the wide-field infrared surveys of WISE and Spitzer to search for these civilizations’ waste heat. We develop a formalism for translating mid-infrared photometry into quantitative upper limits on extraterrestrial energy supplies. We discuss the likely sources of false positives, how dust can and will contaminate our search, and prospects for distinguishing dust from alien waste heat. We argue that galaxy-spanning civilizations may be easier to distinguish from natural sources than circumstellar civilizations (i.e., Dyson spheres), although Gaia will significantly improve our capability to identify the latter. We present a “zeroth order” null result of our search based on the WISE all-sky catalog: we show, for the first time, that Kardashev Type III civilizations (as Kardashev originally defined them) are very rare in the local universe. More sophisticated searches can extend our methodology to smaller waste heat luminosities, and potentially entirely rule out (or detect) both Kardashev Type III civilizations and new physics that allows for unlimited “free” energy generation. (more)

I’ll be quite surprised if they see anything, as I find hard to believe that, if they have existed nearby for a billion years, aliens wouldn’t already be plenty visible in their first result. But the issue is plenty important enough to look carefully anyway.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Cyprus Mail Profile

From a wide-ranging profile of me in the Cyprus Mail (a newspaper):

I’ve learned a bit about his lifestyle – [Hanson] reads widely; he goes biking; he likes movies, and peruses ‘100 Best Films’ lists to check how many he’s seen – but not very much. A profile is supposed to be personal, I remind him. But he shakes his head.

When interviewers talk to a musician or an athlete (or indeed a well-known academic), he points out, they’re forever asking them to ‘tell me about the rest of your life’ – yet “the way people become famous musicians or athletes is to focus so much of their energy on this professional thing, [so] there usually isn’t much of a ‘rest of their life’. And that’s not a message people usually want to hear, so they make up silly things in order to seem personal.”

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:

Open Thread

This is our monthly place to discuss related topics that have not appeared in recent posts.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:

Pretty Smart Healthy Privilege

In our social world, people who are prettier (or hotter) can wear a wider range of clothing and still be seen as socially acceptable. For example, when less pretty people wear especially form-fitting or revealing clothes, they are likely to face social disapproval. They can’t “pull it off.”

Similarly, people who are smarter (or wittier) can talk in conversation about a wider range of topics. If you are not clever or witty, and you bring up a sensitive topic, you are likely to seem awkward and inappropriate, and induce social disapproval. But if you are clever or witty, you can often bring up such subjects in a way that makes people around you laugh and approve.

People who are healthier also have a wider range of socially acceptable activities. People who try to join a group hike or club dance, but who don’t have the energy or coordination to keep up with others, are often frowned upon.

These are three examples of privilege based on familiar kinds of inequality. Not only are these sorts of privilege quite widely accepted, rarely causing much embarrassment or guilt, but we often go out of our way to celebrate and revel in them. In fashion runways, lecture halls, and sporting events we select the most pretty smart healthy people we have, and give them extra attention and approval, thereby increasing social inequality resulting from differences in these features.

An even more dramatic example is inequality based on species. Humans today are gaining huge advantages relative to other species. And most people seem quite okay with celebrating and encouraging these advantages.

When you hear concerns expressed about privilege or inequality, you don’t usually hear these features mentioned. Instead the focus is more often on inequalities tied to income, parental wealth, dominant vs. marginal cultures and ethnicities, rich vs. poor nations, or dominant vs. marginal gender or sexual preferences and styles. Many people seem to find it quite easy to get worked up over privilege and inequality tied to those features.

Now while I can sorta empathize with such resentment and indignation, they don’t feel much more compelling to me that related feelings about the privileges of pretty, smart, or healthy people. Or even humans relative to other species. So while I could sort get behind efforts to mildly reduce the worst extremes caused by all forms of privilege and inequality (or by total inequality, weighing all things), I can’t get behind efforts to focus much more on some forms relative to others.

I have tried to make sense of why people treat these things differently. For example, people seem more concerned about the kinds of inequality that concerned their distant forager ancestors. People seem more eager to express indignation about kinds if inequality would more support more easy grabbing. And people seem more suspicious of inequality resulting from more opaque larger-scale social processes (like labor markets), rather than from more transparent biological and smaller-scale social processes.

But none of these explanations seem to me good reasons to actually worry much more about these kinds of privilege and inequality. Yes disapproved processes like wars, slavery, and theft have contributed substantially to some cultures or sexual styles becoming dominant in our world. But disapproved processes also contribute substantially to some people becoming prettier, smarter, or healthier in our world. And in neither case am I willing to conclude that disapproved processes are the overwhelming cause of such inequality.

As things are counted in today’s political calculus, this apparently makes me a “conservative,” in that I’m less concerned about the sorts of inequalities that greatly concern “liberals.” But I see this less as taking a political position than as remaining uncertain – until I see a good reason to care differently about different kinds of inequality, I’m going to consider them as similar. I see this as like being agnostic about religion. Some people consider a religious agonistic as taking a strong position against religion, and as being almost the same as an atheist. But I think it is worth distinguishing people who take a position against a common view, from people who are uncertain about that view.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Hope For A Lumpy Filter

The great filter is the sum total of all of the obstacles that stand in the way of a simple dead planet (or similar sized material) proceeding to give rise to a cosmologically visible civilization. As there are 280 stars in the observable universe, and 260 within a billion light years, a simple dead planet faces at least roughly 60 to 80 factors of two obstacles to birthing a visible civilization within 13 billion years. If there is panspermia, i.e., a spreading of life at some earlier stage, the other obstacles must be even larger by the panspermia life-spreading factor.

We know of a great many possible candidate filters, both in our past and in our future. The total filter could be smooth, i.e. spread out relatively evenly among all of these candidates, or it could be lumpy, i.e., concentrated in only one or a few of these candidates. It turns out that we should hope for the filter to be lumpy.

For example, imagine that there are 15 plausible filter candidates, 10 in our past and 5 in our future. If the filter is maximally smooth, then given 60 total factors of two, each candidate would have four factors of two, leaving twenty in our future, for a net chance for us now of making it through the rest of the filter of only one in a million. On the other hand, if the filter is maximally lumpy, and all concentrated in only one random candidate, then we have a 2/3 chance of facing no filter at all in our future. Thus a lumpy filter gives us a much better chance of making it.

For “try-try” filters, a system can keep trying over and over until it succeeds. If a set of try-try steps must all succeed within the window of life on Earth, then the actual times to complete each step must be drawn from the same distribution, and so take similar times. The time remaining after the last step must also be drawn from a similar distribution.

A year ago I reported on a new study estimating that 1.75 to 3.25 billion years remains for life on Earth. This is a long time, and implies that there can’t be many prior try-try filter steps within the history of life on Earth. Only one or two, and none in the last half billion years. This suggests that the try-try part of the great filter is relatively lumpy, at least for the parts that have and will take place on Earth. Which according to the analysis above is good news.

Of course there can be other kinds of filter steps. For example, perhaps life has to hit on the right sort of genetic code right from the start; if life hits on the wrong code, life using that code will entrench itself too strongly to let the right sort of life take over. These sort of filter steps need not be roughly evenly distributed in time, and so timing data doesn’t say much about how lumpy or uniform are those steps.

It is nice to have some good news. Though I should also remind you of the bad news that anthropic analysis suggests that selection effects make future filters more likely than you would have otherwise thought.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Great Filter TEDx

This Saturday I’ll speak on the great filter at TEDx Limassol in Cyprus. Though I first wrote about the subject in 1996, this is actually the first time I’ve been invited to speak on it. It only took 19 years. I’ll post links here to slides and video when available.

Added 22Sep: A preliminary version of the video can be found here starting at minute 34.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,