This is really an excellent, down to the earth, one minute teaser, to go that route.
Excellent writing. It would wish I had a follow up move for those who get interested after that points, but raised doubts, be it philosophical, religious, moral, scientific (the last one probably the easiest).
I know those issues had been discussed already, but how could one react in a five minute coffee-break, when the co-worker responds (standard phrases to go): “But death gives meaning to live. And if nobody died, there would be too many people around here. Only the rich ones could get the benefits. And ultimately, whatever end the universe takes, we will all die, you know science, don’t ya?”
I know the sequence answers, but I utterly fail to give any non-embarrassing answer at such questions. It does not help to not being signed up for cryonics oneself.
I know those issues had been discussed already, but how could one react in a five minute coffee-break, when the co-worker responds (standard phrases to go): “But death gives meaning to live. And if nobody died, there would be too many people around here. Only the rich ones could get the benefits. And ultimately, whatever end the universe takes, we will all die, you know science, don’t ya?
If they think that we’ll all eventually die even with cryonics and they think that death gives meaning to life then they don’t need to worry about cryonics removing meaning since it is just pushing the amount of time until death up. (I wouldn’t bother addressing the death giving meaning to life claim except to note that it seems to be a much more common meme among people who haven’t actually lost loved ones.)
As to the problem of too many people, overpopulation is a massive problem whether or not a few people get cryonicly preserved.
As to the problem of just the rich getting the benefits, patiently explain that there’s no reason to think that the rich now will be treated substantially different from the less rich who sign up for cryonics. And if society ever has the technology to easily revive people from cryonic suspension then the likely standard of living will be so high compared to now that even if the rich have more it won’t matter.
It does not help to not being signed up for cryonics oneself.
I talk about it as something I’m thinking about, and ask what they think. That way, it’s not you trying to persuade someone, it’s just a conversation.
“But death gives meaning to live. And if nobody died, there would be too many people around here. Only the rich ones could get the benefits. And ultimately, whatever end the universe takes, we will all die, you know science, don’t ya?”
“Yeah, we’ll all die eventually, but this is just a way of curing aging, just like trying to find a cure for heart disease or cancer. All those things are true of any medical treatment, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t save lives.”
“Yeah, we’ll all die eventually, but this is just a way of curing aging, just like trying to find a cure for heart disease or cancer. All those things are true of any medical treatment, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t save lives.
… “and like any medical treatment, initially only the rich will benefit, but they’ll help bring down the price for everyone else. Infact, for just a small weakly payment...”
Geoff Greer published a post on how he got convinced to sign up for cryonics: Insert Frozen Food Joke Here.
This is really an excellent, down to the earth, one minute teaser, to go that route.
Excellent writing. It would wish I had a follow up move for those who get interested after that points, but raised doubts, be it philosophical, religious, moral, scientific (the last one probably the easiest).
I know those issues had been discussed already, but how could one react in a five minute coffee-break, when the co-worker responds (standard phrases to go): “But death gives meaning to live. And if nobody died, there would be too many people around here. Only the rich ones could get the benefits. And ultimately, whatever end the universe takes, we will all die, you know science, don’t ya?”
I know the sequence answers, but I utterly fail to give any non-embarrassing answer at such questions. It does not help to not being signed up for cryonics oneself.
If they think that we’ll all eventually die even with cryonics and they think that death gives meaning to life then they don’t need to worry about cryonics removing meaning since it is just pushing the amount of time until death up. (I wouldn’t bother addressing the death giving meaning to life claim except to note that it seems to be a much more common meme among people who haven’t actually lost loved ones.)
As to the problem of too many people, overpopulation is a massive problem whether or not a few people get cryonicly preserved.
As to the problem of just the rich getting the benefits, patiently explain that there’s no reason to think that the rich now will be treated substantially different from the less rich who sign up for cryonics. And if society ever has the technology to easily revive people from cryonic suspension then the likely standard of living will be so high compared to now that even if the rich have more it won’t matter.
I talk about it as something I’m thinking about, and ask what they think. That way, it’s not you trying to persuade someone, it’s just a conversation.
“Yeah, we’ll all die eventually, but this is just a way of curing aging, just like trying to find a cure for heart disease or cancer. All those things are true of any medical treatment, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t save lives.”
… “and like any medical treatment, initially only the rich will benefit, but they’ll help bring down the price for everyone else. Infact, for just a small weakly payment...”
This is off-topic but I’m curious: How did you stumble on my blog?
Google alert on “Eliezer Yudkowsky”. (Usually brings up articles about Friendly AI, SIAI and Less Wrong.)