= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Desrtopa comments on Open Thread, November 15-22, 2013 - 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 (257)
I would say that for practical purposes, we could distinguish "selfish" desires from simple "desires," as being ones which place an inappropriate degree of burden on other people. After all, in general usage, we tend to use selfish to mean "privileging oneself over others to an inappropriate degree," not "concerned with oneself at all."
In that context, "I need you to definitely stay dead forever so I can stop worrying about it," seems like a good example of a selfish desire, and rather more like something one would apply to a comic book archenemy than a loved one.
What? Why isn't it more like: "It's very probable that you stay dead forever, so I better stop worrying about it and move on, because if I don't, it'll likely screw up my very probably finite, only life."
If the person takes the burden on themselves to stop worrying about their loved ones who pursue cryonics, that would be a better description. I was trying to encapsulate the scenario under discussion of people who resist letting their loved ones pursue cryonics because it interferes with their sense of closure.
That indeed would be so incredibly selfish that I was blind to the possibility until you explicitly pointed it out now.
This definition turns on the word "inappropriate" which is a weasel word and can mean everything (and nothing) under the sun. How can one be so selfish as to order a Starbucks latte when there are hungry children in Mozambique?
Doesn't look nice, but then most things dialed to 11 don't look nice.
Let's look at analogous realistic examples. Let's say there is a couple, one spouse gets into a car accident and becomes a vegetable. He's alive and can be kept alive (on respirators, etc.) for a long time, but his mind is either no longer there or walled off. What do you think is the properly ethical, appropriately non-selfish behavior for the other spouse?
The example I gave is not just a realistic, but a real example, if as posited upthread, people are resisting having their loved ones pursue cryonics because it denies them a sense of closure.
What does or does not qualify as an inappropriate level of self-privilege is of course subject to debate, but when framed in those terms I think such a position would be widely agreed to be beyond it.
Well, one person. And not "resist", but "highly uncomfortable with". And "may (tentatively) be part of the underlying objection". You are adding lots of certainty which is entirely absent from the OP.
I am still interested in your normative position, though. So let's get back to cryonics. Alice and Bob are a monogamous pair. Bob dies, is cryopreserved. Alice is monogamous by nature and young, she feels it's possible that Bob could be successfully thawed during her lifetime.
What, in your opinion, is the ethical thing for Alice to do? Is it OK for her to remarry?
I don't think that's enough information for me to return a single specific piece of advice. What does Alice think Bob would think of her getting married in his absence were he to be brought back at a later date? How likely does she think it is that he'd be brought back in her lifetime? Does she think that she'd still want to be in a relationship with him if she waited and he was brought back after, say, forty years? Etc.
There are certainly trends in relationship behavior which can constitute actionable information, but I think the solution to any specific relationship problem is likely to be idiosyncratic.
Bob also was monogamous. Alice is pretty sure Bob wouldn't like it.
Alice is uncertain. She thinks it's possible, she is not sure how likely it is.
She has no idea what she'll want in 40 years.
So, are there are any general guidelines, you think? Remember, the claim we are talking about is that the desire for closure is extremely selfish and "suboptimal".
Well, I suspect that anyone preserved with current technology is probably not coming back, while this may not be the case for people preserved in the future given different technological resources, so I'd suggest treating death as probably permanent in cases of present cryonics. So as a guideline, I'd suggest that both those slated to be cryonically preserved and their survivors treat the procedure as offering a low probability that the subject is put into suspended animation rather than permanent death.
How to deal with that situation is up to individual values, but I think that for most people, refusing to seek another partner would result in an expected decrease in future happiness.
Use some clever rationalization and remarry. More rationally, she should be aware that the probability of Bob being resurrected during her lifetime is pretty low.