If what I’m concerned about is current social obligations going unmet, then a hypothetical cryonics approach in which I must arrange for my social obligations to be met in my absence, and I am made to bear the cost of meeting them, means I am no longer able to default on all my obligations by means of cryonic suspension. If resentment at the ability to default in that way is driving my opposition to cryonics, I ought to be less opposed to such a hypothetical cryonics approach.
If I’m correct about this operating on the alief level, then the gut level concern is about people’s current social net, not folks in the future they haven’t built a connection with.
Furthermore, if my gut is at all typical, if the folks in the future start by imposing an unpayable debt, then they feel like an enemy tribe.
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, then if I have this alief that folks who get cryonically preserved are Traitors (because they’re skipping out on their obligations to their current social net), and that alief is what primarily motivates me to reject cryonics (because preservation is a reward and we Don’t Reward Traitors), then even if we build the system to somehow ensure that the cryonically preserved make sure their current social obligations are met (now), and to somehow ensure that the cryonically preserved are made to Pay Their Fair Share (eventually) for those obligations, that won’t necessarily address the alief (and therefore the associated rejection), because…
That’s where I lose the thread.
Yes, I agree that if folks in the future impose an unpayable debt, they feel like enemies, but I’m neither clear on where this unpayable-debt concept is coming from (as distinct from not getting to skip out on paying for alief-relevent obligations). And yes, I agree that the concern is that their current social net be taken care of (which is why it’s important to ensure those obligations are met now, in addition to ensuring that the preserved folks don’t get to Skip Out).
I’m not sure that changes my point.
If what I’m concerned about is current social obligations going unmet, then a hypothetical cryonics approach in which I must arrange for my social obligations to be met in my absence, and I am made to bear the cost of meeting them, means I am no longer able to default on all my obligations by means of cryonic suspension. If resentment at the ability to default in that way is driving my opposition to cryonics, I ought to be less opposed to such a hypothetical cryonics approach.
If I’m correct about this operating on the alief level, then the gut level concern is about people’s current social net, not folks in the future they haven’t built a connection with.
Furthermore, if my gut is at all typical, if the folks in the future start by imposing an unpayable debt, then they feel like an enemy tribe.
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, then if I have this alief that folks who get cryonically preserved are Traitors (because they’re skipping out on their obligations to their current social net), and that alief is what primarily motivates me to reject cryonics (because preservation is a reward and we Don’t Reward Traitors), then even if we build the system to somehow ensure that the cryonically preserved make sure their current social obligations are met (now), and to somehow ensure that the cryonically preserved are made to Pay Their Fair Share (eventually) for those obligations, that won’t necessarily address the alief (and therefore the associated rejection), because…
That’s where I lose the thread.
Yes, I agree that if folks in the future impose an unpayable debt, they feel like enemies, but I’m neither clear on where this unpayable-debt concept is coming from (as distinct from not getting to skip out on paying for alief-relevent obligations). And yes, I agree that the concern is that their current social net be taken care of (which is why it’s important to ensure those obligations are met now, in addition to ensuring that the preserved folks don’t get to Skip Out).
But I don’t see how A connects to B.
What am I missing?