I think cryonics is a terrible idea, not because I don’t want to preserve my brain until the tech required to recreate it digitally or physically is present, but because I don’t think cryonics will do the job well. Cremation does the job very, very badly, like trying to preserve data on a hard drive by melting it down with thermite.
Ah, I see. I just don’t think that cryonics significantly improves the chances of actually extending one’s life span, which would be similar to saying that democracy is not significantly better than most other political systems.
I think cryonics is a terrible idea, not because I don’t want to preserve my brain until the tech required to recreate it digitally or physically is present, but because I don’t think cryonics will do the job well. Cremation does the job very, very badly, like trying to preserve data on a hard drive by melting it down with thermite.
This obviously invites the conclusion that cryonics is a terrible idea in the same sense that democracy is the worst form of government.
Are you saying that cryonics is not perfect, but it is the best alternative?
I’m not sure I understand your point. I’ll read your link a few more times, just to see if I’m missing something, but I don’t quite get it now.
Just referring to the quote:
Ah, I see. I just don’t think that cryonics significantly improves the chances of actually extending one’s life span, which would be similar to saying that democracy is not significantly better than most other political systems.
What do you see as the limiting factors?
The technical ability of current best-case cryonics practice to preserve brain structure?
The ability of average-case cryonics to do the same?
The risk of organizational failure?
The risk of larger scale societal failure?
Insufficient technical progress?
Runaway unfriendly AI?
Something else?
All of the above.