Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Eneasz comments on Cryonic resurrection - an ethical hypothetical - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: ialdabaoth 25 November 2012 12:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (28)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eneasz 26 November 2012 05:35:18PM -1 points [-]

1: Preferably 1, but if there was expected to be a long time gap between .95 and 1, then .95 is acceptable

2: Always assume 1. Much like you always assume the subject would prefer no amputation if at all possible.

3: It's extremely difficult for me to swallow that we won't be able to get to at least .9 with animals. But, given that it must be humans, stick with two criteria: a) those who would most advance the understanding of revivification, so we can minimize the number of subjects that will be required, & b) those who will be the best candidates/least impacted by the damage (ie: better to do someone who'll be dropped to .8 than to do someone who'll be dropped to .7, for the same advancement of knowledge). Among those who best fit the two criteria, randomize. And afterwards the society of revivies should do what they can to make the lives of the damaged as bearable as possible in gratitude for their sacrifice.