That’s...that’s terrible. That it would feel worse to have a chance of resurrection than to have closure. It sounds depressingly plausible that that’s people’s true rejection, but I hope it’s not.
Religion doesn’t have the same problem, and in my experience it’s because of the certainty. People believe themselves to be absolutely certain in their belief in the afterlife. So there’s no closure problem, because they simply know that they’ll see the person again. If you could convince people that cryonics would definitely result in them being resurrected together with their loved ones, then I’d expect this particular problem to go away.
That’s...that’s terrible. That it would feel worse to have a chance of resurrection than to have closure. It sounds depressingly plausible that that’s people’s true rejection, but I hope it’s not.
In my experience, people holding on to very, very small probabilites can be unhealthy. Misplaced hope can be harmful.
Religion doesn’t have the same problem, and in my experience it’s because of the certainty. People believe themselves to be absolutely certain in their belief in the afterlife. So there’s no closure problem, because they simply know that they’ll see the person again.
I don’t think it is quite this cut and dry. Religious people will assert they are certain, but I think there is a significant level of doubt there. People do use heaven as a way to cope with the loss of a loved one—it is perfectly understandable, but I think it ultimately often prevents them from grieving and acheiving healthy and proper closure.
Ideally, how people feel about things would be based in real-world consequences, and a chance of someone being not dead is usually strictly better than the alternative. But I can see how for a small enough chance of resurrection, it could possibly be outweighed by other people holding on to it.
I still hope that isn’t what’s going on in this case, though. That would require people to be feeling “I’d rather have this person permanently dead, because at least then I know where I stand.”
That would require people to be feeling “I’d rather have this person permanently dead, because at least then I know where I stand.”
That’s a pretty insulting way to put it. Consider an alternative: I’ll rather spend my only short life living it to the fullest than worrying about people, including me, who will very likely permanently die no matter what I do to help it.
In that case, the best solution would be to let the loved person freeze and then pretty much ignore them (i.e. spend only as much thought about them as we usually spend on dead people).
The problem I have imagining someone preventing their loved one to do cryonics to have closure is that they will die themselves with certainty anyways. Do they also wish they would die before their loved ones do, in the case of no cryonics?
It’s easier for me to imagine why they wouldn’t want to do cryonics themselves because of wanting closure.
Religious people also believe that after they are resurrected (assuming it will be in heaven), all their problems will be magically fixed. So there is nothing to worry about (besides getting to the heaven).
That’s...that’s terrible. That it would feel worse to have a chance of resurrection than to have closure. It sounds depressingly plausible that that’s people’s true rejection, but I hope it’s not.
Religion doesn’t have the same problem, and in my experience it’s because of the certainty. People believe themselves to be absolutely certain in their belief in the afterlife. So there’s no closure problem, because they simply know that they’ll see the person again. If you could convince people that cryonics would definitely result in them being resurrected together with their loved ones, then I’d expect this particular problem to go away.
In my experience, people holding on to very, very small probabilites can be unhealthy. Misplaced hope can be harmful.
I don’t think it is quite this cut and dry. Religious people will assert they are certain, but I think there is a significant level of doubt there. People do use heaven as a way to cope with the loss of a loved one—it is perfectly understandable, but I think it ultimately often prevents them from grieving and acheiving healthy and proper closure.
The phrase “sure and certain hope of the resurrection” is rather telling. :)
Ideally, how people feel about things would be based in real-world consequences, and a chance of someone being not dead is usually strictly better than the alternative. But I can see how for a small enough chance of resurrection, it could possibly be outweighed by other people holding on to it. I still hope that isn’t what’s going on in this case, though. That would require people to be feeling “I’d rather have this person permanently dead, because at least then I know where I stand.”
That’s a pretty insulting way to put it. Consider an alternative: I’ll rather spend my only short life living it to the fullest than worrying about people, including me, who will very likely permanently die no matter what I do to help it.
In that case, the best solution would be to let the loved person freeze and then pretty much ignore them (i.e. spend only as much thought about them as we usually spend on dead people).
The problem I have imagining someone preventing their loved one to do cryonics to have closure is that they will die themselves with certainty anyways. Do they also wish they would die before their loved ones do, in the case of no cryonics?
It’s easier for me to imagine why they wouldn’t want to do cryonics themselves because of wanting closure.
Sure. But self-modifying to feel differently is hard.
That would depend on how high the chance of resurrection is. Closure is relatively certain.
Religious people also believe that after they are resurrected (assuming it will be in heaven), all their problems will be magically fixed. So there is nothing to worry about (besides getting to the heaven).