You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

passive_fist comments on Open thread for December 24-31, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: NancyLebovitz 24 December 2013 08:58AM

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

Comments (207)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: passive_fist 25 December 2013 06:54:29AM *  1 point [-]

This topic has come up many times before. It's a choice between reviving people, letting them stay in stasis for future revival, or destroying them. Either of the two first options are fine with me as long as I'm revived at some point. And if future morality is such that it is deemed ok to just kill someone rather than keep them in stasis, then that's not a world I want to live in, so I'd rather not be revived.

For me cryonics isn't about living forever. It's about living better.

A more important concern, for me at least, is revival by a malevolent civilization/AI. My prototypical example of a dystopia is the galactic empire from Warhammer 40,000. I would not want to be revived for use as cannon fodder for the empire's troops (ok, I know the chances of there being a totalitarian galaxy-spanning empire in the future are not very high, but you get the point).