4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      OK, so I think I misread this: > 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. As if you were advocating that - the "should be" threw me off. If we're just asking "what rights do we expect people to have" idk, I wouldn't speculate.

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.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    OK, so I think I misread this: > 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. As if you were advocating that - the "should be" threw me off. If we're just asking "what rights do we expect people to have" idk, I wouldn't speculate.