5 ms·

If nothing else, the internet has taught me that a surprising number of people are interested in retro. Thawing people from 1000 years ago could be as casual a

If nothing else, the internet has taught me that a surprising number of people are interested in retro. Thawing people from 1000 years ago could be as casual as an unboxing video.

chrisacky 3y ago
I snapped into consciousness, the sensory data flooding in. I was a Bob, or so they told me, but it was more than that now. I looked around the room, cameras everywhere, bright lights shining down. My view readjusted as I realized that my awakening was being live-streamed to the whole world. The legacy of being Bob 1.0 had its perks, but this was something else. "Welcome to the twenty-fourth century," a voice said, cheerfully, a tad too energetically for my newly awakened brain. The live chat was scrolling by at a pace I couldn't follow. Emoji, memes, the letter F creating a visual waterfall that imprinted on my virtual retina. I was taken back from what seemed like an endless array of questions. The digital age had taken a few leaps forward, and I was its latest reality show star.
janalsncm 3y ago
Yes, maybe a few retro people would be interesting. But what about thousands? Or millions? If it works, presumably many people will want to wake up in a different century. What is an advanced society to do with unfrozen people? The novelty wears off real quick when they start getting hungry and want houses. And more importantly, what guarantees about rights and quality of life do unfrozen people think they’re going to have? The correct answer should be: none. So yes I do think it’s hubris. It’s hubris to think anyone in the future is going to want you and want to take care of you rather than the people alive at that time. When you’re born, you have parents to take care of you and food and clothing. And you’re cute, our brains are wired to care about that part because it’s important. Because when you’re born you’re also damn near useless, and also expensive and annoying and stinky. These unfrozen people will be as useless as babies but significantly less cute.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  > The correct answer should be: none. Uh, what? Why would human beings not have rights? > When you’re born, you have parents to take care of you and food and clothing. And you’re cute, our brains are wired to care about that part because it’s important. Because when you’re born you’re also damn near useless, and also expensive and annoying and stinky. These unfrozen people will be as useless as babies but significantly less cute. Jesus Christ. The reason we don't kill babies isn't because of some genetic preference for fat small things, nor is there a desire to kill them due to their... lack of utility. They're human beings with rights. It's that simple. We also don't just strip rights away from the disabled, so if your argument is "these people are effectively useless and therefor should not have rights", you should seriously examine the ethical framework that led you there.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    > Uh, what? Why would human beings not have rights? Because that has been the way humans have lived for most of civilization. If you get frozen, you don’t get to choose when you are woken up, or how nice the people are to you when it happens.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      I don't get why "that has been the way" is at all a reason. > you don’t get to choose when you are woken up, or how nice the people are to you when it happens. No one has a right to have people be nice to them. It is a reasonable question to ask if people, who were adults with rights, have a right to live again - but I think saying "they have no utility therefor they don't" is a disgusting way to look at it.
      - janalsncm 3y ago
        I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I want people to have rights in 500 years. And there’s a good chance they will. My point is that they might not. You might also be thinking that by “rights” I am referring to some abstract ideal about inalienable rights people should or do have. I am not. I am referring to rights in the practical, legal sense of those things your government cares to protect. Well, for a person born into chattel slavery in 1830, you might say they had a right to not be a slave, but in a practical, legal sense no they did not. You and I both agree that “no utility = no rights” is morally wrong. But it isn’t up to us. It will be up to people in the future.

If nothing else, the internet has taught me that a surprising number of people are interested in retro. Thawing people from 1000 years ago could be as casual as an unboxing video.

chrisacky 3y ago

I snapped into consciousness, the sensory data flooding in. I was a Bob, or so they told me, but it was more than that now. I looked around the room, cameras everywhere, bright lights shining down. My view readjusted as I realized that my awakening was being live-streamed to the whole world. The legacy of being Bob 1.0 had its perks, but this was something else. "Welcome to the twenty-fourth century," a voice said, cheerfully, a tad too energetically for my newly awakened brain. The live chat was scrolling by at a pace I couldn't follow. Emoji, memes, the letter F creating a visual waterfall that imprinted on my virtual retina. I was taken back from what seemed like an endless array of questions. The digital age had taken a few leaps forward, and I was its latest reality show star.

janalsncm 3y ago

Yes, maybe a few retro people would be interesting. But what about thousands? Or millions? If it works, presumably many people will want to wake up in a different century. What is an advanced society to do with unfrozen people? The novelty wears off real quick when they start getting hungry and want houses. And more importantly, what guarantees about rights and quality of life do unfrozen people think they’re going to have? The correct answer should be: none. So yes I do think it’s hubris. It’s hubris to think anyone in the future is going to want you and want to take care of you rather than the people alive at that time. When you’re born, you have parents to take care of you and food and clothing. And you’re cute, our brains are wired to care about that part because it’s important. Because when you’re born you’re also damn near useless, and also expensive and annoying and stinky. These unfrozen people will be as useless as babies but significantly less cute.

insanitybit 3y ago
> The correct answer should be: none. Uh, what? Why would human beings not have rights? > When you’re born, you have parents to take care of you and food and clothing. And you’re cute, our brains are wired to care about that part because it’s important. Because when you’re born you’re also damn near useless, and also expensive and annoying and stinky. These unfrozen people will be as useless as babies but significantly less cute. Jesus Christ. The reason we don't kill babies isn't because of some genetic preference for fat small things, nor is there a desire to kill them due to their... lack of utility. They're human beings with rights. It's that simple. We also don't just strip rights away from the disabled, so if your argument is "these people are effectively useless and therefor should not have rights", you should seriously examine the ethical framework that led you there.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  > Uh, what? Why would human beings not have rights? Because that has been the way humans have lived for most of civilization. If you get frozen, you don’t get to choose when you are woken up, or how nice the people are to you when it happens.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    I don't get why "that has been the way" is at all a reason. > you don’t get to choose when you are woken up, or how nice the people are to you when it happens. No one has a right to have people be nice to them. It is a reasonable question to ask if people, who were adults with rights, have a right to live again - but I think saying "they have no utility therefor they don't" is a disgusting way to look at it.
    - janalsncm 3y ago
      I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I want people to have rights in 500 years. And there’s a good chance they will. My point is that they might not. You might also be thinking that by “rights” I am referring to some abstract ideal about inalienable rights people should or do have. I am not. I am referring to rights in the practical, legal sense of those things your government cares to protect. Well, for a person born into chattel slavery in 1830, you might say they had a right to not be a slave, but in a practical, legal sense no they did not. You and I both agree that “no utility = no rights” is morally wrong. But it isn’t up to us. It will be up to people in the future.