If it’s a technology prize, sure, but emr was suggesting prizes on each cryo-patient for each revival, not a technology prize for the first person to successfully perform a revival at all.
Ok, but if someone is subsidising successful revivals (which is what a prize on each one is), quality of the result will still matter. In a developing area of technology you can’t just do something that ticks all the present checkboxes, and think you can just go on doing that. Standards will rise, and those that can’t keep up will be out of business.
Ok, but if someone is subsidising successful revivals (which is what a prize on each one is), quality of the result will still matter.
No, a prize is a specific way to subsidize. In particular a subsidy based on goals set when the price is formulated.
Having a foundation with a budget to invest into reviving people makes more sense if you care about quality.
No, a prize is a specific way to subsidize. In particular a subsidy based on goals set when the price is formulated.
There’s nothing to stop the foundation paying it from raising its standards over time.
People—at least, the ones sharing the transhumanist worldview—want revival. The people who work on revival want revival. Revival is the goal, not a few piddling millions or billions of dollars. Industrial-scale revival won’t happen until people are satisfied that it really is revival; then and not before will that huge market exist. When prizes are involved, you’re looking at early-stage technology, whose only reason for existing is to become mature technology.
Perhaps, but a) whether someone’s actually been brought back to life successfully is hard to verify externally and they might not end up optimising for it even accidentally since the incentivised tech development is for the same quality but cheaper and faster and b) probably a lot of people would be killed by this practice in the time between “revival” becoming possible and standards getting high enough that it’s actually reviving people and not killing the original and creating someone new, so the prize thing still sounds like a bad idea.
If it’s a technology prize, sure, but emr was suggesting prizes on each cryo-patient for each revival, not a technology prize for the first person to successfully perform a revival at all.
Ok, but if someone is subsidising successful revivals (which is what a prize on each one is), quality of the result will still matter. In a developing area of technology you can’t just do something that ticks all the present checkboxes, and think you can just go on doing that. Standards will rise, and those that can’t keep up will be out of business.
No, a prize is a specific way to subsidize. In particular a subsidy based on goals set when the price is formulated. Having a foundation with a budget to invest into reviving people makes more sense if you care about quality.
There’s nothing to stop the foundation paying it from raising its standards over time.
People—at least, the ones sharing the transhumanist worldview—want revival. The people who work on revival want revival. Revival is the goal, not a few piddling millions or billions of dollars. Industrial-scale revival won’t happen until people are satisfied that it really is revival; then and not before will that huge market exist. When prizes are involved, you’re looking at early-stage technology, whose only reason for existing is to become mature technology.
Perhaps, but a) whether someone’s actually been brought back to life successfully is hard to verify externally and they might not end up optimising for it even accidentally since the incentivised tech development is for the same quality but cheaper and faster and b) probably a lot of people would be killed by this practice in the time between “revival” becoming possible and standards getting high enough that it’s actually reviving people and not killing the original and creating someone new, so the prize thing still sounds like a bad idea.