Yes and yes. I know what this is like because my grandmother spent the last years of her life with Alzheimer’s, in a nursing home. When she finally died, my mom didn’t cry; she explained to me that she had already done her mourning years ago. It made sense, insofar as it can ever make sense to “get over” the annihilation of a loved one: my grandmother, the person, had already effectively died long before her body did. None of us knew about cryonics at the time, and we likely wouldn’t have done it even if we had known about it, but I know that people are in this situation all the time, and as awareness and acceptance of cryonics grows, people should definitely have this option.
I’m inclined to say that it should be discouraged but legal as an individual choice. A person could already achieve a similar (though riskier) effect by calling an ambulance, making sure their bracelet and necklace are prominently visible, and killing themselves in a relatively non-destructive way.
Yes. I don’t know much about the pros and cons of neuro/whole-body other than the cost, but I think I’d go with the latter, to err on the side of caution.
Yes. I’d say it should be opt-out, or opt-in if that is absolutely necessary for getting the law passed.
Yes. The laws should treat it like an instance of killing someone in a coma, which are presumably the same as the laws for killing someone in general. Of course it should vary depending on whether it is accidental, negligent, or intentional.
I’m not quite sure. I’d think that if you cause someone’s bodily death, and they are able to be preserved perfectly, then it should be treated as a non-fatal assault or accident or whatever, but something doesn’t seem right about that. I think, rather than having the laws against causing someone’s bodily-but-not-information-theoretic death less severe, I’d prefer to have laws against causing someone’s information-theoretic death more severe.
I’d prefer to abolish the death penalty altogether. If the compromise I gave as an example were politically feasible, I would support it, but I doubt it would garner much more support than abolishing the death penalty; it seems like too many people in the US view the criminal justice system as a tool of punishment/revenge rather than of rehabilitation.
When it seems like a relatively mainstream thing to do (not necessarily common, but common enough that your friends don’t think you’re crazy for opting in to it) — when society has outgrown its rationalizations of death and its resistance to immortality (religious objections; the idea that there is some spiritual essence that will be destroyed; the luddite/”science has gone too far!” response; the idea that having people die against their will is a morally permissible means of avoiding overpopulation; et cetera) — then can we start questioning the mental health of people who still object to it.
My answers:
Yes and yes.
I know what this is like because my grandmother spent the last years of her life with Alzheimer’s, in a nursing home. When she finally died, my mom didn’t cry; she explained to me that she had already done her mourning years ago. It made sense, insofar as it can ever make sense to “get over” the annihilation of a loved one: my grandmother, the person, had already effectively died long before her body did. None of us knew about cryonics at the time, and we likely wouldn’t have done it even if we had known about it, but I know that people are in this situation all the time, and as awareness and acceptance of cryonics grows, people should definitely have this option.
I’m inclined to say that it should be discouraged but legal as an individual choice. A person could already achieve a similar (though riskier) effect by calling an ambulance, making sure their bracelet and necklace are prominently visible, and killing themselves in a relatively non-destructive way.
Yes. I don’t know much about the pros and cons of neuro/whole-body other than the cost, but I think I’d go with the latter, to err on the side of caution.
Yes. I’d say it should be opt-out, or opt-in if that is absolutely necessary for getting the law passed.
Yes. The laws should treat it like an instance of killing someone in a coma, which are presumably the same as the laws for killing someone in general. Of course it should vary depending on whether it is accidental, negligent, or intentional.
I’m not quite sure. I’d think that if you cause someone’s bodily death, and they are able to be preserved perfectly, then it should be treated as a non-fatal assault or accident or whatever, but something doesn’t seem right about that. I think, rather than having the laws against causing someone’s bodily-but-not-information-theoretic death less severe, I’d prefer to have laws against causing someone’s information-theoretic death more severe.
I’d prefer to abolish the death penalty altogether. If the compromise I gave as an example were politically feasible, I would support it, but I doubt it would garner much more support than abolishing the death penalty; it seems like too many people in the US view the criminal justice system as a tool of punishment/revenge rather than of rehabilitation.
When it seems like a relatively mainstream thing to do (not necessarily common, but common enough that your friends don’t think you’re crazy for opting in to it) — when society has outgrown its rationalizations of death and its resistance to immortality (religious objections; the idea that there is some spiritual essence that will be destroyed; the luddite/”science has gone too far!” response; the idea that having people die against their will is a morally permissible means of avoiding overpopulation; et cetera) — then can we start questioning the mental health of people who still object to it.