4 ms·
Why would they not want to revive you? How awesome would it be, if we could revive someone who lived around the year 1500, 1000 or even 0? I expect people in th
by _ink_ 6y ago
Why would they not want to revive you? How awesome would it be, if we could revive someone who lived around the year 1500, 1000 or even 0? I expect people in the year 3000 (if there are still people around and if they have it relatively good) would see it equally when looking to the year 2000.
- raxxorrax 6y agoThe novelty will probably fall off quickly.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago“Ugh, another idiot we need to explain quantum tablets and sensory implants to!”
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago> "How awesome would it be, if we could revive someone who lived around the year 1500, 1000 or even 0?" One or two of them, maybe. Probably the most famous ones. All of them, including ordinary people like you or I? Not a chance.
- komali2 6y agoI would be much more interested in what a tenth century peasant had to say considering all the famous ones were the only ones whose perspectives we get to see. The historical gaps concern the other 90% of the population.
- triceratops 6y agoThe point still applies though. After you've revived 4 or 5 peasants, you've probably gotten most of the information you were interested in. And now you have 4 or 5 peasants who are poorly adjusted to the world they now find themselves in, and you have to take care of them for a long time. How many would you revive?
- pbourke 6y agoI imagine that your first 10th century peasant would be much more interesting than your 500th
- Talanes 6y agoThat's great, but the peasant couldn't afford the long-term storage fees and his body got unfrozen and chucked 2000 years ago.
- echelon 6y agoI'd be worried some rich psychopath (actually, probably an AI) would resurrect people and put them into a torture dungeon for eternity. Imagine never being able to die. Only suffer. No mouth, must scream vibes. Who knows what the future holds. But in the remote chance this is what the future holds, the AI may not even need your body. It might be able to simulate you up to the moment of your death. Or find some quirk of physics and pull you forward in time. To suffer forever. Or maybe it's benevolent and lets us live in an eternity of bliss? Maybe it gets bored and does this for all humans that ever lived. There might be some arbitrary criteria or some random number generator it uses to decide your fate. I find all of this much more compelling than religion's perspective of the afterlife. Take that, Basilisk. My machination is worse (or better).
- Talanes 6y agoSo... Satan with a science fiction coat?
- klunger 6y agoYou really ought to read I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. The author has already thought of basically the same thing and written a rather compelling yet disturbing short story about. In 1967, no less.
- echelon 6y agoOh, I have. It's fantastic. But if we're going to give unfathomable power to such an AI, it's not much more of a leap to give it the ability to resurrect people from the past and subject them to whatever it desires. Taking it even one step further and comparing it to the Simulation Hypothesis [1], perhaps we're already there. The machine might be making us live our lives again only at some point to surprise us with some unthinkable horror or delight. If such a machine arises and is capable of these feats, then we might currently be living in re-simulations of our past lives that have already ended. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis