4 ms·

your criticism is correct of the argument that you're countering, but that's not the argument I was making - see my reply to blueskin_ for a clarification/rebut

your criticism is correct of the argument that you're countering, but that's not the argument I was making - see my reply to blueskin_ for a clarification/rebuttal. [edit] just so you know, I upvoted your comment to counter a downvote from someone else. You make a strong case, regardless of the fact that it didn't address my original point.

kelnos 12y ago
I think the parent has a fair argument, and I don't think blueskin_ was really off either. Do you know -- actually know -- the current state of the science behind cryonics? If so, good on you, but if not (more likely), how do you know exactly what the probability of being revived later is? People (even not-so-rich people) spend upwards of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just to prolong their own life a couple months. How is the cost of that expense more justifiable than even a small probability of being revived in the future and becoming healthy and possibly immortal? In the end, it's a judgment call as to what you do with your money. Unfortunately, fear of mortality and death is a very strong motivator for a lot of people, so we don't necessarily spend money related to death in a particularly optimal way. It's the height of arrogance to suggest that your way is better, or, even if it is objectively better, to impose your views on someone else's use of their money.
- alexjeffrey 12y ago
  I'm a keen transhumanist, so yes I am familiar with the state of cryonics. I'm not a cryogenicist and couldn't put an actual number on the probability of success (neither could anyone else) but I'm aware of the serious challenges that face cryonics. For example, while the current chemical cocktail they're using as antifreeze is much more effective than the original solutions, the problem of cell deterioration due to cell membrane rupture still prevents the brain from being well preserved for the timescales cryonics is looking at. While we don't understand the brain that well yet, the extent of physical brain damage that would be seen over e.g. 100 years' freezing under current conditions would not be insignificant. That may not be a problem in the future, but noone can predict the future. Also, to suggest I'm imposing my view on other people is asinine; this is a forum for voicing opinions, and I'm voicing mine. I understand that when I'm on my death bed I might well make the same decision to preserve my body - human beings are hypocrites by nature and I'm certainly no exception. However, if you're suggesting that raising an opinion/suggestion on the subject that is different to yours is arrogance then I'd take a moment to consider the idea that it might be _you_ that is being arrogant; reread my post and maybe you'll realise that my tone was more along the lines of highlighting an alternative use for this money, and with much more viable results in objective terms. If cryonics was known (or even generally considered) to be viable then I would likely hold a different opinion.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    The difference is that you are telling people what they should do with their money (which is arrogant, or possibly holier-than-thou, but I'd certainly not a positive thing). I'm telling you to back off and let people decide for themselves. If you have some special dictionary that suggests I'm being arrogant there, I'd love to see it.

kelnos 12y ago

I think the parent has a fair argument, and I don't think blueskin_ was really off either. Do you know -- actually know -- the current state of the science behind cryonics? If so, good on you, but if not (more likely), how do you know exactly what the probability of being revived later is? People (even not-so-rich people) spend upwards of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just to prolong their own life a couple months. How is the cost of that expense more justifiable than even a small probability of being revived in the future and becoming healthy and possibly immortal? In the end, it's a judgment call as to what you do with your money. Unfortunately, fear of mortality and death is a very strong motivator for a lot of people, so we don't necessarily spend money related to death in a particularly optimal way. It's the height of arrogance to suggest that your way is better, or, even if it is objectively better, to impose your views on someone else's use of their money.

alexjeffrey 12y ago
I'm a keen transhumanist, so yes I am familiar with the state of cryonics. I'm not a cryogenicist and couldn't put an actual number on the probability of success (neither could anyone else) but I'm aware of the serious challenges that face cryonics. For example, while the current chemical cocktail they're using as antifreeze is much more effective than the original solutions, the problem of cell deterioration due to cell membrane rupture still prevents the brain from being well preserved for the timescales cryonics is looking at. While we don't understand the brain that well yet, the extent of physical brain damage that would be seen over e.g. 100 years' freezing under current conditions would not be insignificant. That may not be a problem in the future, but noone can predict the future. Also, to suggest I'm imposing my view on other people is asinine; this is a forum for voicing opinions, and I'm voicing mine. I understand that when I'm on my death bed I might well make the same decision to preserve my body - human beings are hypocrites by nature and I'm certainly no exception. However, if you're suggesting that raising an opinion/suggestion on the subject that is different to yours is arrogance then I'd take a moment to consider the idea that it might be _you_ that is being arrogant; reread my post and maybe you'll realise that my tone was more along the lines of highlighting an alternative use for this money, and with much more viable results in objective terms. If cryonics was known (or even generally considered) to be viable then I would likely hold a different opinion.
- kelnos 12y ago
  The difference is that you are telling people what they should do with their money (which is arrogant, or possibly holier-than-thou, but I'd certainly not a positive thing). I'm telling you to back off and let people decide for themselves. If you have some special dictionary that suggests I'm being arrogant there, I'd love to see it.