5 ms·
Before commenting you should read the article. It very explicitly makes it an economic value question. Which is the context in which I wrote my answer.
by creesch 2y ago
Before commenting you should read the article. It very explicitly makes it an economic value question. Which is the context in which I wrote my answer.
- Dig1t 2y agoI did read the article, the author's point is obvious, there is no incentive to boot up a 1000 year old brain. My point is that I think the author missed the family connection. >1000 years pass. Everyone that ever knew, loved or cared about you die. Doesn't matter if your descendants never knew you, they still might want you around. I personally would want to boot up my ancestors going back 1000 years, and I think a lot of people would. Purely for filial affinity reasons. And the person that you boot up might want you to boot up THEIR parents and so on. Beyond curiosity and research purposes, it's obviously not useful to boot up a 1000 year old person and try to educate them to be competent in a future. But I think the author just glossed over the fact that there might be a physical link (genes, family, etc) between you and certain people living 1000 years from now. Actually it seems fairly likely to me that at least one of your descendants will want to boot you up just based on the sheer number of descendants you end up having factoring in exponential growth of offspring. Frame it this way: if one of your descendants has a 1% chance of wanting to bring you back and talk to you and see what you're like and you have thousands of descendants, you have a fairly good chance of being brought back at least for some period of time.
- bcrl 2y agoBut which one of your ancestors do you boot up? Over 1000 years, fanout at 2.6 kids per couple is significant as that's easily going to be more than 25 generations.