I agree with the morality of signing up your children for cryonics, but something is tickling my mind that I am unsure of.
If they die as children and cryonics works, they may wake up in a very different situation and their parents may not have survived. This still seems much better than dying, and perhaps children would be better able to adapt to any future shock, but cryonics at this point entails the risk of a discontinuous leap into an alien future. Adults at least know what they are getting themselves into and make the choice for themselves.
At the present time I am not signed up for cryonics but I intend to. I will influence my wife to sign up (and presumably our kids once we have kids.). I plan to suggest to my parents that they sign up for cryonics, but they probably won’t. I’m not planning to try push them, or particularly mount an effort to change their minds. At the moment I feel like they need to come into it themselves if they are going to be happy about it later.
The morality of the issue is clear and intuitive to me: uncertainty is hugely preferable to death.
However, I also see a blind spot in my reasoning: I don’t understand the implications of making that kind of decision for someone else, including someone (a child) who is incapable of making decisions for themselves yet. I’m not sure if this is significantly different than all the other decisions parents make for their children. Maybe I’ll understand it better when I actually have kids—but right now I know I don’t understand the implications of making big decisions for a non-consenting person.
I wonder if it’s really so different from all the other decisions that parents take and that often end up saving kids lives (and thus giving them some responsibility for exposing them to an uncertain future).
Would someone face the same moral dilemma with seatbelts? I don’t think so, but what’s the difference?
It is possible that a far future would be a bad place for that child that you saved, but it is also possible for the near future to be a bad place (from poverty all the way to surviving a nuclear holocaust and living through The Road), yet we seem to be fine making that choice to save them.
I’m not sure the difference is quite as big as we might first think. There is more uncertainty, but it goes both way (could be much worse, but could also be much better), and maybe it cancels out.
This still seems much better than dying, and perhaps children would be better able to adapt to any future shock, but cryonics at this point entails the risk of a discontinuous leap into an alien future.
There is no “but”. If it’s better, you should do it. If the “risk of a discontinuous leap into an alien future” is so serious, then you should admit that it’s actually worse if the children survive, which I don’t buy.
The part that interests me is whether or not I have the right to make these decisions for my (future) child. I think I probably do, and in absence of knowing, I will assume I do.
However, control over the decision feels a little funny and I don’t know exactly why. It has something to do with consent and something to do with my not caring to push my parents toward it.
As a parent you make a great many decisions for your children that effect their lives in ways great and small. This is not simply your right, but your duty. Cryonics is just one of the many choices you will have to make.
Not pushing your parents towards it is another issue, but have you even discussed the possibility of it with them? My parents were surprisingly positive of the idea when I discussed it with them, and are now actively researching it. Previously, they were not aware that it was even a serious option.
I agree with the morality of signing up your children for cryonics, but something is tickling my mind that I am unsure of.
If they die as children and cryonics works, they may wake up in a very different situation and their parents may not have survived. This still seems much better than dying, and perhaps children would be better able to adapt to any future shock, but cryonics at this point entails the risk of a discontinuous leap into an alien future. Adults at least know what they are getting themselves into and make the choice for themselves.
At the present time I am not signed up for cryonics but I intend to. I will influence my wife to sign up (and presumably our kids once we have kids.). I plan to suggest to my parents that they sign up for cryonics, but they probably won’t. I’m not planning to try push them, or particularly mount an effort to change their minds. At the moment I feel like they need to come into it themselves if they are going to be happy about it later.
Compare: death.
Would you kill them to prevent it?
The morality of the issue is clear and intuitive to me: uncertainty is hugely preferable to death.
However, I also see a blind spot in my reasoning: I don’t understand the implications of making that kind of decision for someone else, including someone (a child) who is incapable of making decisions for themselves yet. I’m not sure if this is significantly different than all the other decisions parents make for their children. Maybe I’ll understand it better when I actually have kids—but right now I know I don’t understand the implications of making big decisions for a non-consenting person.
I wonder if it’s really so different from all the other decisions that parents take and that often end up saving kids lives (and thus giving them some responsibility for exposing them to an uncertain future).
Would someone face the same moral dilemma with seatbelts? I don’t think so, but what’s the difference?
It is possible that a far future would be a bad place for that child that you saved, but it is also possible for the near future to be a bad place (from poverty all the way to surviving a nuclear holocaust and living through The Road), yet we seem to be fine making that choice to save them.
I’m not sure the difference is quite as big as we might first think. There is more uncertainty, but it goes both way (could be much worse, but could also be much better), and maybe it cancels out.
Choosing the status quo is still making a decision.
There is no “but”. If it’s better, you should do it. If the “risk of a discontinuous leap into an alien future” is so serious, then you should admit that it’s actually worse if the children survive, which I don’t buy.
See also: Reversal test, Shut up and multiply.
The part that interests me is whether or not I have the right to make these decisions for my (future) child. I think I probably do, and in absence of knowing, I will assume I do.
However, control over the decision feels a little funny and I don’t know exactly why. It has something to do with consent and something to do with my not caring to push my parents toward it.
As a parent you make a great many decisions for your children that effect their lives in ways great and small. This is not simply your right, but your duty. Cryonics is just one of the many choices you will have to make.
Not pushing your parents towards it is another issue, but have you even discussed the possibility of it with them? My parents were surprisingly positive of the idea when I discussed it with them, and are now actively researching it. Previously, they were not aware that it was even a serious option.