5 ms·
I think you're assuming the system has more consistency than it does. That is, there's no inherent reason the system must have a consistent view of you as aliv
by msla 6y ago
I think you're assuming the system has more consistency than it does.
That is, there's no inherent reason the system must have a consistent view of you as alive or dead, so the reasonable conclusion is that it won't, so you'll be alive to the parts of it responsible for punishing you, but dead to the parts of it you want to be alive to. After all, the jail won't burn down because it's holding a person some government database considers to be dead.
- Verdex 6y agoYeah, this is a good point. However, I'm wondering if you can't bring things into alignment. Like, if the IRS wants to get money from you, then all of your financial parts of you need to be considered alive. And maybe that's good enough. Or maybe you could commit libel or slander or copyright infringement such that people will want to sue you for damages, but you're not legally able to lose money because you can't legally hold money. And from that perspective ... maybe people could pay you to commit slander or copy right infringement and then you can live off of that money until someone shows up who is willing to do the leg work to bring you financially back from the dead so that they can successfully sue you for damages. Really this is more of a thought experiment though. Like, obviously the government could bring you back if they really wanted to. It's just that they don't really want to because it's too much work for somebody. And it's sad that there probably does exist a crime/civil violation that you could commit such that suddenly it's worth someone's effort to bring you back.
- aspenmayer 6y agoThis train of thought reminds me of the plot of The Unincorporated Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unincorporated_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unincorporated_Man