= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Should criminals be denied cryonics? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (49)
No.
In fact it should be provided for them, as it should be for all human beings and, just in case, chimpanzees.
Any other questions?
I don't disagree with you (except the part about Chimpanzees), but I can see this becoming a big issue eventually, like when some prisoner demanded a sex-change operation and the media freaked out, I can see them freaking out the same way when a major serial killer tries to sign up for cryonics: "Killer wants to be frozen to kill again in the fututre!"
I say keep the chimps, at least enough to support a viable population. None of this 'just in case' business. I want to conserve the heritage.
Would it be sufficient to just store some DNA samples, then?
It would be rather awesome if a major serial killer were to sign up for cryonics.
especially if sylvester stallone subsequently signed up, pledging to stop him in the future.
I tried to convince my friend Ted Kaczynski to sign up, but he didn't seem interested for some reason.
Some more questions:
Paid for by whom? And why?
And what about bonobos and whales?
I'd definitely prefer bonobos to chimps. Whales might be a bit less cost effective.
Whales might be a good candidate for chemical preservation due to the cost effectiveness issue.