Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 287 posts

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#21

Post by iso1631 »

biolurker1 wrote: post #9
NateEag wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not seen a reason to think cryonics will work at all. Even if we actually do find a way to restore frozen near-death people to life, you'd better write a heck of a pitch as to why future humans should spend resources on reviving and healing you. Never mind all the resources being spent on keeping you properly frozen all that time. That's all assuming the company running your freezer doesn't just go belly-up af…

the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.

You're describing Pascal's wager.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#22

Post by codetrotter »

podgaj wrote: post #13
wombatmobile wrote: post #7

"Mostly it is loss which teaches us about the worth of things." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha! Sorry, no. It is our attachment to things that determine their worth.

> So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha!

Maybe not but, you probably had to earn it in the first place and that is why you know its value.

I think if you were born rich and never had to worry about money in an existential way, then you would not really know the value of it. Not even from observing the pain of others. I think the only way is to really experience it first hand.

Even if a rich person tried to "simulate" it by not allowing themselves to spend more than x amount of money for say a month or something it still would not be the same. At all. Because no matter how bad that month would be, they still know all along that it's not a real threat and that the money is right there waiting for them.

But if you had to go through a lot of real pain, then you know the real value of money. I wonder, however, if with time we would forget still. I dunno, I have never been wealthy yet.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#23

Post by robbiep »

biolurker1 wrote: post #9
NateEag wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not seen a reason to think cryonics will work at all. Even if we actually do find a way to restore frozen near-death people to life, you'd better write a heck of a pitch as to why future humans should spend resources on reviving and healing you. Never mind all the resources being spent on keeping you properly frozen all that time. That's all assuming the company running your freezer doesn't just go belly-up af…

the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.

The same argument could essentially be applied to the resurrection

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#25

Post by podgaj »

sacado2 wrote: post #20
podgaj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha! Sorry, no. It is our attachment to things that determine their worth.

It's a well known psychological phenomenon though. Losing a given sum of money is more painful than earning that same amount. if you find a $20 banknote on the sidewalk, you wont be as happy as the guy who lost lost it is pissed off.

What you do not have you cannot become attached to. You can still have something and not be attached to it.

That is Buddhism/Daoism in a nutshell.

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#26

Post by dr_dshiv »

biolurker1 wrote: post #3

I wish more people would learn about cryonics. It's either 0 or something above zero probability.

I'm a fan! Seems like a nice way to die.

Would you have a planned death at 75 to potentially get resurrected in 200 years? I say yes. I like how it creates death planning. Just better hope the interest keeps compounding!

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#27

Post by podgaj »

codetrotter wrote: post #22
podgaj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha! Sorry, no. It is our attachment to things that determine their worth.

> So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha! Maybe not but, you probably had to earn it in the first place and that is why you know its value. I think if you were born rich and never had to worry about money in an existential way, then you would not really know the value of it. Not even from observing the pain of others. I think the only way is to really experience it first hand. Even if a rich person tried to…

"But if you had to go through a lot of real pain, then you know the real value of money. "

The more pain and suffering I have the more I realize money is not important at all and that money might be the cause of most of the pain and suffering in the world.

(Is that not a religious soul left on the internet?)

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#28

Post by Juliate »

fipar wrote: post #16
biolurker1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.

I think even if you ignore the environment, and cost, the argument for cryonics is not very good. Let's say someone is successfully revived, there's still heart attacks, cancer, crime (and not just "lowly" criminals, crime also happens within families for inheritance, for example), accidents (car, or just slipping in the shower), earthquakes, ... The list is pretty much endless. Death is unavoidable, IMHO it's best t…

Yes, if only for the legal status of property/inheritance: if you are to be revided, who owns your wealth? Do you children inherit? And/when you are revived, what resources do you have? Is your family/descendants in charge of you, or you of them?

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#29

Post by podgaj »

podgaj wrote: post #13
wombatmobile wrote: post #7

"Mostly it is loss which teaches us about the worth of things." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

So if I never loose my money it is worthless! Ha! Sorry, no. It is our attachment to things that determine their worth.

Down voting Buddhism! Ha! Maybe if I wore my Ochre robe you would all upvote me!

Re: At 31, I have just weeks to live. Here's what I want to pass on

#30

Post by gus_massa »

biolurker1 wrote: post #9
NateEag wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not seen a reason to think cryonics will work at all. Even if we actually do find a way to restore frozen near-death people to life, you'd better write a heck of a pitch as to why future humans should spend resources on reviving and healing you. Never mind all the resources being spent on keeping you properly frozen all that time. That's all assuming the company running your freezer doesn't just go belly-up af…

the argument is this: certain death vs a miniscule one in a quadrillion chance or lower. It will always tilt the other way no matter what the current scientific status quo is saying because it's possible in theory and it has happened to living organisms before just not humans. Whether it's good for environment, your siblings pocket etc is not part of the core argument.

Or give the money to your children so they have a small head start that can use to conquer the world (eventually).

Also, what happens if you are revived?

Where are you going to live? Your home was probably sold a long time ago, or you must share it with all the intermediate revived generations. What about money?

Where are you going to work? Imagine the frozen time was only 100 year. It is difficult to predict what will happen in 100 years, but it is easier to look at the past. Medical doctors didn't have penicillin and Electrical Engineers didn't have transistors. You must take most of your university courses again and perhaps part of your high school classes too.

Post reply on HN