Whatever is going on, it seems to be on the alief level.
Eeyup.
You’ve got me wondering whether one of the reasons is the opposite, not so much fear of being out of one’s social net, but hatred of people who get to default on all their obligations while still being alive.
Now that’s an /interesting/ thought to consider and compare. Eg, if that’s more of a factor than my proposed ‘wake up community-less’ thought, then how might we be able to tell?
I don’t know of any science fiction which includes people from different time peoples forming sub-cultures after revival
The closest I can recall is the comic “Transmetropolitan”, which had, as a minor sub-plot, cryo revivees experiencing extreme future shock and a tendency to remain together in the dorms provided for them.
Eg, if that’s more of a factor than my proposed ‘wake up community-less’ thought, then how might we be able to tell?
To the extent that I’m motivated by hatred of defaulters, I should prefer a hypothetical cryonics approach in which people continue to accrue debt (and interest on debt) which they have to pay off somehow upon revival.
To the extent that I’m motivated by fear of communitylessness, I should prefer a hypothetical cryonics approach in which people are guaranteed a social community (e.g., reviving cultural cohorts all at once, and precommitting to not reviving people with insufficient cohort).
So by asking people to choose among various hypothetical cryonics approaches with different traits, it seems like I should be able to gather some evidence about people’s motivations.
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).
So by asking people to choose among various hypothetical cryonics approaches with different traits, it seems like I should be able to gather some evidence about people’s motivations.
Which people are you thinking of asking? Existing cryo enthusiasts, would-be cryo enthusiasts who haven’t signed up, random citizenry?
I look at your increasing-debt scenario and wince mightily; that approach would leave me worse off than someone who simply immigrates as a refugee from the worst hellhole on the planet. I look at the latter… and wince again; that last clause implies that if insufficient other people enter cryonics near the same time as me, then my odds of being woken up at all decrease significantly, which would defeat the whole point of the exercise. I’m fairly sure that I would rather be alive and monetarily poor than not alive, so I prefer the former… though I can, of course, think of many other scenarios I’d prefer even more. And, of course, I’m about as un-typical a surveyee as you’re likely to find.
(shrug) Whichever people I’m interested in the motivations of. I would expect to get different answers for different subsets of the population. That said, surveying cryo enthusiasts to find out about their motives for rejecting cryonics would be more challenging.
Eeyup.
Now that’s an /interesting/ thought to consider and compare. Eg, if that’s more of a factor than my proposed ‘wake up community-less’ thought, then how might we be able to tell?
The closest I can recall is the comic “Transmetropolitan”, which had, as a minor sub-plot, cryo revivees experiencing extreme future shock and a tendency to remain together in the dorms provided for them.
To the extent that I’m motivated by hatred of defaulters, I should prefer a hypothetical cryonics approach in which people continue to accrue debt (and interest on debt) which they have to pay off somehow upon revival.
To the extent that I’m motivated by fear of communitylessness, I should prefer a hypothetical cryonics approach in which people are guaranteed a social community (e.g., reviving cultural cohorts all at once, and precommitting to not reviving people with insufficient cohort).
So by asking people to choose among various hypothetical cryonics approaches with different traits, it seems like I should be able to gather some evidence about people’s motivations.
When I was talking about defaulting, I was thinking more about social obligations to people from your own time.
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?
Which people are you thinking of asking? Existing cryo enthusiasts, would-be cryo enthusiasts who haven’t signed up, random citizenry?
I look at your increasing-debt scenario and wince mightily; that approach would leave me worse off than someone who simply immigrates as a refugee from the worst hellhole on the planet. I look at the latter… and wince again; that last clause implies that if insufficient other people enter cryonics near the same time as me, then my odds of being woken up at all decrease significantly, which would defeat the whole point of the exercise. I’m fairly sure that I would rather be alive and monetarily poor than not alive, so I prefer the former… though I can, of course, think of many other scenarios I’d prefer even more. And, of course, I’m about as un-typical a surveyee as you’re likely to find.
(shrug) Whichever people I’m interested in the motivations of. I would expect to get different answers for different subsets of the population. That said, surveying cryo enthusiasts to find out about their motives for rejecting cryonics would be more challenging.