= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Risto_Saarelma comments on Open thread for December 24-31, 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 (207)
The reason I'm not optimistic about cryonics is because I don't think it's likely that I'd be revived in the future, even if the technology would work perfectly if used properly. Imagine modern-day explorers find 5000 people cryogenically frozen in a cave 1000 years ago, and we can revive any number of them. How many would be revived? I doubt even half of them would be - because, if revived, what would they do? What would 5000 people from around 1000 AD do in modern times? And the faster pace of social and technological change compounds the problem. So if someone had the opportunity to revive me in 500-1000 years, I don't think they would.
I expect this is a common argument against cryonics. Is there a counterargument, and if so, what is it?
They would be adults, then. Small children from 1000 AD could just learn what's going on in modern times and start doing whatever everyone else is doing.
So what exactly is keeping the adults back here? And would it still be a thing in a world where you can bring frozen human brains back to life?