5 ms·

Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? Everyone you know and love will have been long dead, and any society with both the

by s_q_b 12y ago

Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? Everyone you know and love will have been long dead, and any society with both the means and will to revive you may have undesirable objectives in mind, e.g. a life of slavery or military conscription. From a global perspective, what are the potential impacts on the species of an eternal elite, obsessed with life extension, creating an ever-growing class of ancient capital holders? Assuming both constant human nature and the lack of an self-reinforcing intelligence cascade (i.e. no singularity event), survival is not an obviously rational choice.

nawitus 12y ago
Yeah, future may very well be worse than death, but I personally estimate the expected utility of a future life to be more than zero.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>survival is not an obviously rational choice. It's a reversible choice though.
ef4 12y ago
> Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? Each individual for themselves, obviously. > Everyone you know and love will have been long dead This obviously contradicts the original assumption that you might actually get revived. Because if you can, so can others. > may have undesirable objectives in mind, e.g. a life of slavery or military conscription I find it hard to believe that it will ever be cheaper to revive dead frozen humans than simply let living humans breed new humans for free. And plenty of people now living aren't even cost-competitive against the machines of 2014 or 2024, nevermind the machines of a society capable of reviving the dead. Both as a slave and as a soldier, you're likely to be horribly inadequate. Honestly the bigger question is why the future people would bother to wake you up at all. Maybe history buffs would be happy to talk to you. Maybe the world gets so rich that a few weird enthusiasts can afford to do it on their own. But the bottom line is that if the future turns out to be awful, you can always choose to die again. Plenty of people would be willing to have a look around first.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  >> Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? >Each individual for themselves, obviously. Agreed. Merely pointing out the choice does not have a clear answer. >This obviously contradicts the original assumption that you might actually get revived. Because if you can, so can others. Only those with spare wealth and foresight, which comprises a vanishingly small part of the current population. Most people's loved ones are unlikely to be part of that small population. >But the bottom line is that if the future turns out to be awful, you can always choose to die again. Any society that has mastered the technology necessary to revive you can certainly master the technology necessary to physically or chemically restrain you. >Honestly the bigger question is why the future people would bother to wake you up at all. That is the question. And I fear, upon waking, one may not like the answer...
- saalweachter 12y ago
  I would personally expect "everyone you know and love" to be the reason any of us schmucks have a hope of being revived. Even if there is no economic or scientific reason to revive a frozen, preserved person, there could still be sentimental reasons. If my grandfather were frozen and reviveable, and not dead and buried, I would want to revive him. If it were remotely within my financial means, I would save for decades, mortgage or sell everything I own, take on any debt I could trick people into lending me, if it technologically possible to bring a parent back to life. It is not difficult to imagine a chain of un-freezing in some distant future. Children unfreeze parents; parents unfreeze grandparents; grandparents unfreeze great-grandparents. As long as there is some tenuous connection between the preserved and the living, at some price point a living old friend or third cousin will want to revive the preserved. Add in the odd charity for the few friendless frozen and it is not hard to imagine any frozen person eventually being revived, technology permitting.
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    > If my grandfather were frozen and reviveable, and not dead and buried, I would want to revive him. If it were remotely within my financial means, I would save for decades, mortgage or sell everything I own, take on any debt I could trick people into lending me, if it technologically possible to bring a parent back to life. Of course you feel this way. Everyone does. And that's the problem. Imagine most of the world's productive output being redirected to the massive project of unfreezing generations of cryogenically preserved ancestors. This is one of the cheerier possibilities. Most of the reasons that occur to me that an advanced society, lacking an intelligence cascade, would want to conjure a large number of functioning highly-educated consciousnesses are decidedly darker. This possibility, and a thousand other unforeseen individual and societal implications of cryogenics, deserve debate.
rbanffy 12y ago
Well... Unless something prohibits the subject from self-terminating, it still beats death.
protothomas 12y ago
On that note, this (http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus) is worth watching if you can get hold of it. It appears to be on 4od for uk viewers.

by s_q_b 12y ago

nawitus 12y ago

Yeah, future may very well be worse than death, but I personally estimate the expected utility of a future life to be more than zero.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

>survival is not an obviously rational choice. It's a reversible choice though.

ef4 12y ago

> Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? Each individual for themselves, obviously. > Everyone you know and love will have been long dead This obviously contradicts the original assumption that you might actually get revived. Because if you can, so can others. > may have undesirable objectives in mind, e.g. a life of slavery or military conscription I find it hard to believe that it will ever be cheaper to revive dead frozen humans than simply let living humans breed new humans for free. And plenty of people now living aren't even cost-competitive against the machines of 2014 or 2024, nevermind the machines of a society capable of reviving the dead. Both as a slave and as a soldier, you're likely to be horribly inadequate. Honestly the bigger question is why the future people would bother to wake you up at all. Maybe history buffs would be happy to talk to you. Maybe the world gets so rich that a few weird enthusiasts can afford to do it on their own. But the bottom line is that if the future turns out to be awful, you can always choose to die again. Plenty of people would be willing to have a look around first.

s_q_b 12y ago
>> Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? >Each individual for themselves, obviously. Agreed. Merely pointing out the choice does not have a clear answer. >This obviously contradicts the original assumption that you might actually get revived. Because if you can, so can others. Only those with spare wealth and foresight, which comprises a vanishingly small part of the current population. Most people's loved ones are unlikely to be part of that small population. >But the bottom line is that if the future turns out to be awful, you can always choose to die again. Any society that has mastered the technology necessary to revive you can certainly master the technology necessary to physically or chemically restrain you. >Honestly the bigger question is why the future people would bother to wake you up at all. That is the question. And I fear, upon waking, one may not like the answer...
saalweachter 12y ago
I would personally expect "everyone you know and love" to be the reason any of us schmucks have a hope of being revived. Even if there is no economic or scientific reason to revive a frozen, preserved person, there could still be sentimental reasons. If my grandfather were frozen and reviveable, and not dead and buried, I would want to revive him. If it were remotely within my financial means, I would save for decades, mortgage or sell everything I own, take on any debt I could trick people into lending me, if it technologically possible to bring a parent back to life. It is not difficult to imagine a chain of un-freezing in some distant future. Children unfreeze parents; parents unfreeze grandparents; grandparents unfreeze great-grandparents. As long as there is some tenuous connection between the preserved and the living, at some price point a living old friend or third cousin will want to revive the preserved. Add in the odd charity for the few friendless frozen and it is not hard to imagine any frozen person eventually being revived, technology permitting.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  > If my grandfather were frozen and reviveable, and not dead and buried, I would want to revive him. If it were remotely within my financial means, I would save for decades, mortgage or sell everything I own, take on any debt I could trick people into lending me, if it technologically possible to bring a parent back to life. Of course you feel this way. Everyone does. And that's the problem. Imagine most of the world's productive output being redirected to the massive project of unfreezing generations of cryogenically preserved ancestors. This is one of the cheerier possibilities. Most of the reasons that occur to me that an advanced society, lacking an intelligence cascade, would want to conjure a large number of functioning highly-educated consciousnesses are decidedly darker. This possibility, and a thousand other unforeseen individual and societal implications of cryogenics, deserve debate.

rbanffy 12y ago

Well... Unless something prohibits the subject from self-terminating, it still beats death.

protothomas 12y ago

On that note, this (http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus) is worth watching if you can get hold of it. It appears to be on 4od for uk viewers.