12 ms·
1. I remember that research, but it deals only with "programmed self-destruction". To completely fix the mortality problem we'd need to redesign the human organ
by kika 12y ago
1. I remember that research, but it deals only with "programmed self-destruction". To completely fix the mortality problem we'd need to redesign the human organism from the ground up, which might not be feasible. Kind of "second system syndrome".
2. Right, having attained technological immortality, rich people could completely isolate themselves from the poor, getting richer and richer (in the broad sense of the word - more experienced, more advanced in studies, etc) and poor would lose even the theoretical path into this "rich bubble". You can't "rather avoid the drawbacks" by stopping progress, you'll have to use the progress to avoid drawbacks, but I do not see how.
Cryonics is not a backup. Backup implies working restore procedure. Cryonics is like removing platters from the hard drive with a screwdriver and putting them into file cabinet somewhere in someone's basement, hoping that they would be just okay. Yeah, possible.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago2. Friendly AI seems to be a solution. Depends what will happen. Either we will have an intelligence explosion, and the "winner takes all" scenario that it implies —in which case all we have to do is ensure the first AI is Friendly —yeah, piece of cake… Or, we won't have intelligence explosion, and I don't see how to avoid the Hansonian outcome either. (Those interested in guessing what is more likely to happen may be interested by the Yudkowsky-Hanson debate.) Cryonics: agreed. I wouldn't bet my life on it if I could help it. Cryonicists often say that cryonics is the second worst thing that can happen to you (just after certain death).