= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - 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 (694)
Assume 1000 animated years. :)
That's what I figured out.
I'd be interested to know what proportion gave an estimate for 1000 year lifespans which is at least as high as their estimate for revival from cryonics.
I suppose it's possible that suspended animation is incompatible with great longevity for those alive now, but it's hard to think of a mechanism. Perhaps genetic modification is required for longevity, and the tech for revival can't simulate that.
Hm. This was my position before, and apparently I forgot about it when assigning my probability for the anti-aging question. Oops.
Hypothetical: if that were the case, would it be better not to thaw out cryonics patients as soon as it becomes possible to, in the hopes that the longevity problem would be solved in the future?
I suppose it depends on how likely rejuvenation is to be solved. If it's looking unsolvable, then reviving the person asap makes sense-- there's probably less culture shock in dealing with a less distant future.