= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on The Threat of Cryonics - 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 (212)
I am against cryonics, and here's why (though I would love to hear a rebuttal):
Cryonics seems inherently, and destructively, to the human race, grossly selfish. Not only is cryonics a huge cost that could be spent elsewhere helping others, nature and evolution thrive on the necessity of refreshing the population of each species. Though it's speculation, I would assign the probability of evolution continuing to work (and improve) on the human race as pretty high - what gain does the human species have in preserving humans from the 21st century indefinitely, when 23rd century or later humans are better?
Overall, in no way can I think of cryonics benefiting anyone other than the individual's (I think simply genetic) desire to avoid death (maybe it benefits future anthropologists I guess), and the cost of cryonics, given that, is what turns me off so much. I can understand people indulging themselves every once in a while, but since I tend to think gratuitous selfishness is a bad thing for the human race, I find myself understanding cryonic-phobic people more than cryonics-supporters.
Is this an invalid view?
I agree that evolution will continue for the human race, though I think a lot of it will become memetic rather than.
However, it's hard to tell what's an improvement and what isn't.
I admit to concerns about increased no-pause longevity-- the same people could stay in charge for a very long time. Institutions are less likely to get refreshed with new ideas.
Cryonics is relatively safe for that problem-- people aren't going to be able to sustain power if they're gone for decades. (Or at least there's some interesting science fiction work to be done figuring out how they could.)
My assumption is that revived people will be a smallish part of the population, and will add variety by keeping old points of view from getting lost.
In particular, artists aren't fungible, and I think it would be an advantage to continue to get new works from the good ones.
"My assumption is that revived people will be a smallish part of the population, and will add variety by keeping old points of view from getting lost."
This. I can't help but feel we are all too often swept into crazy herd behavior. And at least currently we seem trending towards fewer languages and more globalized intellectual currents.
What is that saying? The past is a foreign country.
—L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between
—Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe, and Everything (commenting on the effect of time-travel)
—yours truly
Voted up for pithiness - "The past is a foreign country", I will definitely remember that.
It's very useful to have one-liners for important concepts like this, helps to keep the meme propogation going.
I'm also concerned by this. Particularly troublesome is the observation that moral progress seems to require multiple generations. When we defeat aging, we will have to develop the art of evolving one's terminal values so that everyone can participate in moral progress.
‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ — Max Planck
Of course, it is the purpose of this site (in some ways) to make Planck wrong, but there's a lot of work ahead.