wintermute92
2
wintermute92 has not written any posts yet.
wintermute92 has not written any posts yet.
I think the suggestion that clickiness leads to acceptance of all ideas is flawed. On a practical level, people who click on a number of topics tend to hold few or no inaccurate beliefs (bolstering the unconquered-territory theory), but significantly, they also tend to only adopt good beliefs. Some ideas click, while others which seem to be just as subject to first-blush judgement (eg. "People should only live out their natural lifespan.") are rejected near-instantly.
On the metaphorical level, I think the game example holds up as long as we assume that the territories we are discussing are desirable - that is to say, everything we are looking to conquer is... (read more)
In addition to the very valid counterpoints listed here, I think its worth noting the false dichotomy of the question. If the initial assumption is that population is capped, that hasn't been borne out yet, and assuming we eventually leave Earth in a sustainable-habitats manner, doesn't have to ever hold true. If population-capping isn't the basis for your statement, then I don't see anything suggesting that the total number of people will be the same with and without cryonics.
We are not choosing between ourselves and future potential people - at the moment, we are simply choosing between possible-ourselves and definitely-not-ourselves existing in the future.