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

‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 499 posts

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#81

Post by spondylosaurus »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #76
SubiculumCode wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General anesthesia is not good for the brain.

replying to myself to provide more context. In my PhD work, I helped conduct the human portion of a study on this topic, contributing to some discussions at the FDA [1]. The idea was a bit controversial then, and I've had a few anesthesiologists get mad at me for it, but the general pattern has now been replicated quite a few times now, such that the field has largely moved on from 'Is something bad happening?' to 'W…

Is there any reason to suspect that adults suffer the same effects as infants? (Not asking to be combative, just curious whether children are uniquely affected because their brains are still cooking.)

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#82

Post by all2 »

9dev wrote: post #42
ericmcer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection so death is no longer a necessity from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe immortal humans would be more beneficent because they wouldn't be scrambling to get ahead in their short time here. If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits.

Well. How would you like a 290 years old Putin keeping a tight grip on Russia in the 23rd century?

I see, so this is where the God-Emporer of Man comes from.

purge the xenos

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#83

Post by kajumix »

tj-teej wrote: post #80

I wonder how much of a relief the belief that when you sit on your deathbed you will be woken up again would provide. Even if the tech doesn't work, I wonder how much relief from suffering the idea that it will in a hundred years could be

Those hundred years won't exist for the dying. I would personally find comfort in knowing that I will feel waking up right away into a technologically much more advanced world

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#84

Post by xanderlewis »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #76
SubiculumCode wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General anesthesia is not good for the brain.

replying to myself to provide more context. In my PhD work, I helped conduct the human portion of a study on this topic, contributing to some discussions at the FDA [1]. The idea was a bit controversial then, and I've had a few anesthesiologists get mad at me for it, but the general pattern has now been replicated quite a few times now, such that the field has largely moved on from 'Is something bad happening?' to 'W…

The two sources you've given are both about general anaesthetic in infancy, though. Are you staying it might extend to adults?

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#85

Post by Filligree »

JohnFen wrote: post #60
ericmcer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection so death is no longer a necessity from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe immortal humans would be more beneficent because they wouldn't be scrambling to get ahead in their short time here. If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits.

> We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection We certainly have not. > If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits. True, but if you lived forever that would mean that it wouldn't be realistic for new people to come into the world, which means far fewer new ideas and ways of looking at t…

That sounds like a more tractable problem than death.

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#86

Post by guappa »

SergeyKa wrote: post #77
ryandvm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits. Spoiler: The haves are not going to get any more generous when they've got thousand year lifespans. You would just have end up having to spend hundreds of years grinding away at the bottom of the ladder instead of 30 or 40.

We grind away to keep the body supplied and satiated. A transcended/uploaded mind won't have the earthly needs and would be a lot cheaper to maintain, leaving it to achieve otherwise impossible results.

Want some runtime on the good CPU? Got to work.

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#87

Post by bdcravens »

tj-teej wrote: post #80

I wonder how much of a relief the belief that when you sit on your deathbed you will be woken up again would provide. Even if the tech doesn't work, I wonder how much relief from suffering the idea that it will in a hundred years could be

Isn't that the main promise of most religion?

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#88

Post by JoshTriplett »

JohnFen wrote: post #60
ericmcer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection so death is no longer a necessity from an evolutionary standpoint. Maybe immortal humans would be more beneficent because they wouldn't be scrambling to get ahead in their short time here. If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits.

> We have already decimated any semblance of natural selection We certainly have not. > If I didn't only have 30-40ish productive years to achieve whatever I will in this life it would be much easier to donate money or time to charitable pursuits. True, but if you lived forever that would mean that it wouldn't be realistic for new people to come into the world, which means far fewer new ideas and ways of looking at t…

1) There's no danger of overpopulation. People have a natural tendency to reproduce slower when they feel safer.

2) Trivial argument: if people already lived indefinitely would you advocate murdering them to "make room"? Telling people they shouldn't be able to pursue a longer life is equivalent. Making that decision for yourself is perfectly fine; making it for others is not.

3) 150k people die every day, nearly 2 people per second. If fixing that tragedy creates new problems, bring them on; we'll solve those problems too.

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#89

Post by kh_hk »

NickM wrote: post #11

I used to buy into this kind of stuff, but I've become more and more skeptical of the idea that you would still be yourself if your brain could be preserved/emulated/transplanted/whatever. Our nervous system extends into our bodies. We feel emotions in our bodies. People with certain kinds of brain damage that prevents them from feeling emotions normally also experience trouble making rational decisions. More recent…

In terms of computing (one that we do not understand), it would be like cloning a live machine by taking the CPU dye only, or maybe the hard drive. How many parts you need to take away from a computer for it to be the same machine? It's easy though with a VM, or a kernel that supports many hardware. Kind of a digress, but I liked this idea.

Re: ‘With brain preservation, nobody has to die’

#90

Post by bambax »

slibhb wrote: post #56

One of Don DeLillo's later good novels is about this stuff (Zero K). I always think people's attitude toward possible future worlds is interesting. You can see a wide spread of opinion in this thread -- whether you think functional immortality would be a good thing says a lot about who you are. Ditto for colonizing other planets, automating all work, building AGI, and so on. I suppose I'm on the side of the technolog…

I'm certain immortality is possible, and it's also likely to be achieved, because we always do everything we can do, regardless of consequences.

But I think this is the acme of selfishness. I don't want to be immortal, and I wouldn't want to live in a world with 500-year-old know-it-alls running around "oldsplaining" everything to everyone else.

I have, thankfully, a fairly good chance of dying before that happens.

Post reply on HN