4 ms·

If in the future we developed technology that enabled effective "backup&restore" for human (and animal) minds, would that change your reasoning for this argumen

If in the future we developed technology that enabled effective "backup&restore" for human (and animal) minds, would that change your reasoning for this argument?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
And it was as cheap and easy as it is on a computer? It would change how we deal with almost everything. All of the social structures we have around preventing people from getting hurt would be irrelevant because damage could be undone. No one would have an experience they didn't choose to have. Murder would be a crime on the level of vandalism or destruction of property. "Human life is sacred" would simply not be true anymore.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  > And it was as cheap and easy as it is on a computer? And yet most people still don't take backups of their data on a computer. Frequently, cost is the problem for the average Joe. Ergo the lower class would not infrequently suffer permadeath. This isn't even getting into how often backups fail in being restored. By your logic, if I bring down your biz's computer system and vandalize your homepage, but you still managed to restore a backup, are you not going to sue for damages et al? People go to jail for cybercrime, even if the damage can be undone. Why would murder be any different even in a world where it was hypothetically an inconvenience?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > And yet most people still don't take backups of their data on a computer. Frequently, cost is the problem for the average Joe. Ergo the lower class would not infrequently suffer permadeath. People don't back up the data on their computer because it generally isn't all that valuable, not because backups are expensive. A $30 USB hard drive amortized over five years is $0.50/month. If it was a matter of life and death, no one would go without as a matter of cost, and governments could plausibly offer it to everyone for free even if it cost ten times as much to provide a high level of redundancy and availability. > People go to jail for cybercrime, even if the damage can be undone. Because it's a crime on the level of vandalism or destruction of property (or ought to be; some of the penalties can be quite excessive). It is not a crime on the level of murder, and murder wouldn't be either if it could be undone.

If in the future we developed technology that enabled effective "backup&restore" for human (and animal) minds, would that change your reasoning for this argument?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

And it was as cheap and easy as it is on a computer? It would change how we deal with almost everything. All of the social structures we have around preventing people from getting hurt would be irrelevant because damage could be undone. No one would have an experience they didn't choose to have. Murder would be a crime on the level of vandalism or destruction of property. "Human life is sacred" would simply not be true anymore.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
> And it was as cheap and easy as it is on a computer? And yet most people still don't take backups of their data on a computer. Frequently, cost is the problem for the average Joe. Ergo the lower class would not infrequently suffer permadeath. This isn't even getting into how often backups fail in being restored. By your logic, if I bring down your biz's computer system and vandalize your homepage, but you still managed to restore a backup, are you not going to sue for damages et al? People go to jail for cybercrime, even if the damage can be undone. Why would murder be any different even in a world where it was hypothetically an inconvenience?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > And yet most people still don't take backups of their data on a computer. Frequently, cost is the problem for the average Joe. Ergo the lower class would not infrequently suffer permadeath. People don't back up the data on their computer because it generally isn't all that valuable, not because backups are expensive. A $30 USB hard drive amortized over five years is $0.50/month. If it was a matter of life and death, no one would go without as a matter of cost, and governments could plausibly offer it to everyone for free even if it cost ten times as much to provide a high level of redundancy and availability. > People go to jail for cybercrime, even if the damage can be undone. Because it's a crime on the level of vandalism or destruction of property (or ought to be; some of the penalties can be quite excessive). It is not a crime on the level of murder, and murder wouldn't be either if it could be undone.