As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it? • Hacker News Board

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#121

Post by dpark » Mon, Oct 17, 2011, 3:09 PM UTC

lsparrish wrote: post #120

dpark wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the fraction for reincarnation is likely not nearly enough, given that simple surgeries routinely cost tens of thousands of dollars and building a new body is something we can't even do.

You seem to be assuming an absence of compound interest, overfunding, external funding sources, and future advances that make things cheaper.

You seem to be assuming that a lot of random things will somehow come together to make cryonics work.

Compound interest? Depends on how the trust is managed. Once you're dead, you're obviously not going to be able to influence that. It also depends on the economy, and we've seen some pretty long runs lately with no cumulative gains.

Overfunding? That doesn't even make sense. We're talking about there no being enough funds, and you pipe in with "what if there's too much!".

External funding? What makes you think someone in the future is going to drop a million to reanimate your head?

Future advances? Sure, but it seems pretty farfetched to say that future advances are going to make body reconstruction affordable. I mean, how long have we been waiting for affordable flying cars?

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#122

Post by dpark » Mon, Oct 17, 2011, 3:25 PM UTC

lsparrish wrote: post #117

dpark wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes it costs more money and it has to be done in advance. ... You could put it in the bylaws that they cannot merge into a conglomerate, or mandate that they split every so often. ... Sure those are a constant risk. The solution is to put money and resources towards reducing the risks, starting with the worst ones and/or the cheapest to fix. This likely has enormous positive externalities for the population as a wh…

I'm saying that cryonics implies taking a certain degree of responsibility for the future. That's not an argument in favor of it working. It is an argument in favor of it being a positive thing overall, irrespective of it working. It provides selfish incentive for caring about the fate of future generations. Since we are trying to establish betting odds and what is a fair price for cryonics, all the externalities nee…

I'm saying you're making an arbitrary link without substance that suits your purposes. Cryonics does not imply or require actually caring about the future in any significant way. All cryonics implies is a desperate desire for self-prolonging. The process of maintaining someone in a frozen state definitely has negative consequences for the environment. This is not the act of someone trying to help the future. It's the act of someone who puts his own desires over the well-being of the future.

You're crazy to think that a well-educated populace will avoid war. Americans are well-educated and we've been involved in wars nearly non-stop since we were founded. As for companies failing, the last several years have shown us that educated people will happily destroy companies for personal gain (not that we didn't already know this).

Natural disasters can be made less probable by choosing an appropriate location, not avoided entirely. An asteroid can hit Arizona as easily as New York. And earthquakes can basically strike anywhere. They're simply more likely in certain areas.

My argument for cryonics' low probability is based on the fact that so many things can go wrong over such a long time frame (we don't engineer nuclear facilities to last for thousands of years). The fact that some people have pursued cryonics is in no way proof or even evidence of it's feasibility. How many billions of people pursue religion for the same reasons? The desire for self-preservation often results in irrational behaviors.

Re: As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it?

#123

Post by dpark » Mon, Oct 17, 2011, 3:54 PM UTC

lsparrish wrote: post #118

dpark wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It isn't, directly. It is an investment in something else which makes that a more important issue to an individual. That affects the probability of the individual taking actions that favor the given outcome. The main purpose of getting your head frozen is saving the individual's life directly, but it does have this positive externality. No, it doesn't. This is all feel-good silliness. You've said stuff like this in…

People usually have a limited amount they will give to charity and will generally spend the rest on something selfish. Cryonics feels selfish, so they will spend money on it that they would not have given to charity anyway. People who care about the state of the world after their deaths are not in the same position as those who actually expect to experience it. They are not as likely to care as much or to employ rati…

So you're saying that people interested in cryonics will not actually give more money to charities? Doesn't that go counter to the assertion that you've repeatedly made that cryonists are more likely to invest in improving the future?

People who care about the state of the world after their deaths are more likely to donate. How much have charities benefited from posthumous donations? A cryonist who does not expect to "die" has no incentive to donate in their will. At least religions say "you can't take it with you". Cryonics says "sure you can; put it in the bank".

You're also making a false connection between the desire for self-preservation and rational behavior. People do all kinds of stupid crap because they think it will keep them alive. They go to faith healers, they take dangerous or useless substances, they engage in pointless rituals, etc. I would say "pursuing cryonics" belongs to that list.