= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zachary_Kurtz comments on Costs to (potentially) eternal life - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (107)
Cryonics is good because life is good. The subjective value of my life doesn't make it ok to kill someone I perceive as less valuable.
Here's another argument against: if murder suddenly becomes a defensible position in support of cryonics, then how do you think society, and therefore societal institutions, will respond if murder becomes the norm? I think it becomes less likely that cryonic institutions will succeed, and thus jeopardize everyone's chances of living 100,000+ years.
It's not about what's okay; it's about what people will actually do when their life expectancy goes up drastically.
That's the point I'm trying to make. An action that could appear to increase life expectancy drastically could actually have the opposite affect (in the situation I propose by affecting the institutional structure required for cryonics to succeed).
Yes, once cryopreservation is widespread across the globe. But when only some people access and others don't, and we have a decent shot of actually being revived, the tragedy from a cryonics subscriber losing their life is much greater than when a non-cryonics subscriber loses their life.