13 ms·

Never thought I would ask something like this, but here goes: What's Y Combinator's stance on the death requirement? Nectome was at demo day last month and Sam

Never thought I would ask something like this, but here goes: What's Y Combinator's stance on the death requirement? Nectome was at demo day last month and Sam Altman is (or was) on the waiting list. Following the example of electric-vehicle maker Tesla, it is sizing up demand by inviting prospective customers to join a waiting list for a deposit of $10,000, fully refundable if you change your mind. So far, 25 people have done so. One of them is Sam Altman, a 32-year-old investor who is one of the creators of the Y Combinator program. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610456/a-startup-is-pitching-a-mind-uploading-service-that-is-100-percent-fatal/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610456/a-startup-is-pitch...

kolpa 9y ago
> Sam Altman, a 32-year-old investor who is one of the creators of the Y Combinator program. Sam Altman co-created Y Combinator when he was 20?
- toyg 9y ago
  He most definitely did not found YC but he is indeed 32.
- jamestimmins 9y ago
  No, the article is incorrect. He wasn't a creator; he was in an early batch (the first I believe), and then became president some time after his company was acquired.
Veedrac 9y ago
First and foremost cryogenics has a PR problem. It is somehow more popular to say that you're glad people are dying by the billions than to align yourself with the people trying to make an earnest effort to stop it (now imagine how fast I would be banned for the same position around genocide). I'm not sure whether this will just further the kneejerk anti-cryogenics sentiment or if it will seem to more normalise normal post-death cryogenics, but it does seem a rather dangerous play. I don't want cryogenics to find itself tangled up in crazy legal issues. At an object level I'm not all that concerned with the ethics of people taking this bet, given the science is pretty sound. It does not make sense to allow people to take medical treatment that have a significant chance of serious harm for the chance of a few years longer health if it pans out, but then ban a bet as safe as cryogenics.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Can you imagine what this planet would be like if people didn't die? How much more crowded we'd be? How much more of a strain we'd be placing on the earth's resources?
  - GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
    Can you imagine a better incentive for off-planet migration and terra-forming?
    - Retra 9y ago
      Why is incentivizing that a priority? If it is something that needs to happen, then it will need to happen regardless of the incentives.
      - GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
        Well in an argument between "everyone should die by 150 years" and "lets have the happy problem of people not dying of old age" I'm in the latter camp. Similarly having all of your species susceptible to any out of context problem that destroys a planet... yeah planetary existential risks are low probability with game ending penalty I'd like to see mitigated.
        Retra 9y ago
        Sure, but if you put half of humanity on Mars, you'd clearly be increasing our risk, as the difficulty of surviving on Mars is nearly insurmountable. If you want people on other planets, they need to be self-sustaining. And if we can't even be self-sustaining on Earth, why would we be elsewhere? We're a very very long way away from being able to survive if Earth fails. It is foolish to bet on any kind of interplanetary survival strategy at this point. Getting humans to other worlds is by far the easiest part of that equation.
        9y ago
dmix 9y ago
If it's not possible without induced death then is the concern really the "death requirement" or whether it makes sense for consumers to gamble $10k+ that in a future you a) will not die suddenly, b) your brain will not have deteriorated significantly, c) you are fully capable of making a decision to die, d) the company is still around, and e) the science somehow works out to allow "brain uploading"? Then yes I say there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's their money and their body. Schopenhauer has the very best treatise on the morality/philosophy of each persons right to suicide: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter3.html https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimi...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
aurellem 9y ago
First off, again we are currently conducting research and are not preserving people. Our early supporters have shown their support for Nectome’s research through fully refundable deposits, and we hope that they will live long, healthy lives, creating the very memories that they hope can one day be preserved.

kolpa 9y ago

> Sam Altman, a 32-year-old investor who is one of the creators of the Y Combinator program. Sam Altman co-created Y Combinator when he was 20?

toyg 9y ago
He most definitely did not found YC but he is indeed 32.
jamestimmins 9y ago
No, the article is incorrect. He wasn't a creator; he was in an early batch (the first I believe), and then became president some time after his company was acquired.

Veedrac 9y ago

First and foremost cryogenics has a PR problem. It is somehow more popular to say that you're glad people are dying by the billions than to align yourself with the people trying to make an earnest effort to stop it (now imagine how fast I would be banned for the same position around genocide). I'm not sure whether this will just further the kneejerk anti-cryogenics sentiment or if it will seem to more normalise normal post-death cryogenics, but it does seem a rather dangerous play. I don't want cryogenics to find itself tangled up in crazy legal issues. At an object level I'm not all that concerned with the ethics of people taking this bet, given the science is pretty sound. It does not make sense to allow people to take medical treatment that have a significant chance of serious harm for the chance of a few years longer health if it pans out, but then ban a bet as safe as cryogenics.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
Can you imagine what this planet would be like if people didn't die? How much more crowded we'd be? How much more of a strain we'd be placing on the earth's resources?
- GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
  Can you imagine a better incentive for off-planet migration and terra-forming?
  - Retra 9y ago
    Why is incentivizing that a priority? If it is something that needs to happen, then it will need to happen regardless of the incentives.
    - GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
      Well in an argument between "everyone should die by 150 years" and "lets have the happy problem of people not dying of old age" I'm in the latter camp. Similarly having all of your species susceptible to any out of context problem that destroys a planet... yeah planetary existential risks are low probability with game ending penalty I'd like to see mitigated.
      - Retra 9y ago
        Sure, but if you put half of humanity on Mars, you'd clearly be increasing our risk, as the difficulty of surviving on Mars is nearly insurmountable. If you want people on other planets, they need to be self-sustaining. And if we can't even be self-sustaining on Earth, why would we be elsewhere? We're a very very long way away from being able to survive if Earth fails. It is foolish to bet on any kind of interplanetary survival strategy at this point. Getting humans to other worlds is by far the easiest part of that equation.
        9y ago

dmix 9y ago

If it's not possible without induced death then is the concern really the "death requirement" or whether it makes sense for consumers to gamble $10k+ that in a future you a) will not die suddenly, b) your brain will not have deteriorated significantly, c) you are fully capable of making a decision to die, d) the company is still around, and e) the science somehow works out to allow "brain uploading"? Then yes I say there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's their money and their body. Schopenhauer has the very best treatise on the morality/philosophy of each persons right to suicide: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter3.html https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimi...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

aurellem 9y ago

First off, again we are currently conducting research and are not preserving people. Our early supporters have shown their support for Nectome’s research through fully refundable deposits, and we hope that they will live long, healthy lives, creating the very memories that they hope can one day be preserved.