[rfvtgb123]

And from then on, are we going to keep people from having children or are we going to let massive overpopulation happen? Where to recover the stored minds to?

That said, in my oppinion a big part of what makes life worthwhile IS that it is finite.

[I am working with the assumption that by "backup and recovery plan for people" essentially you are talking about making people immortal by backing up their mind before the body dies and somehow keeping it working, e.g. recovering it to a different body.]

[TeMPOraL]

Fortunately the tech required to restore minds will most likely solve the overpopulation problems as well.

One mistake people make when discussing cryopreservation is considering it in isolation. Reviving frozen minds will likely require some form of basic molecular nanotech, and this same technology can in principle convert dirt to habitats on Earth and in space.

As for my opinion about dying: fuck that. I don't want to die. I don't see any reason for any of us to pass away. If we can fix this, then let's do it.

[rfvtgb123]

cryopreservation

That's not what I was talking about.

Reviving frozen minds

Frozen. Minds. Say What?

will likely require some form of basic molecular nanotech,

Wild assertion.

and this same technology can in principle convert dirt to habitats on Earth and in space.

Wild speculation.

To sum it up - you have nothing. Asserting "OH the tech we will have by then will magically fix it and we will live in space" is not a solution. It's not relevant to you and me anyway because we will likely not be able to backup and restore minds during our lifetime.

Additionally, bodies frozen today will NEVER be revived because the body and brain are utterly damaged in the process (http://www.skepdic.com/cryonics.html).

[TeMPOraL]

> That's not what I was talking about.

I was refering to the "backup and recovery plan for people" part of your comment, following the best idea about it we nowdays have.

> Frozen. Minds. Say What?

Yup.

>> will likely require some form of basic molecular nanotech,

> Wild assertion.

It's not a wild assertion, it's the basic assumption of this concept. Cryonics by definition is "let's freeze dying people 'till we crack nanotech". See also [0].

>> and this same technology can in principle convert dirt to habitats on Earth and in space.

> Wild speculation.

If we get nanotech (even just by reprogramming nanotech that is already around us) then this is the consequence. It's not a speculation - this comes straight from the premise. Actually, cheap construction abilities should come much earlier than revival. Notice that we already made some progress in reprogramming viruses and bacteria, as well as using protocells to construct structures (there was a TED talk about it some time ago).

> To sum it up - you have nothing. Asserting "OH the tech we will have by then will magically fix it and we will live in space" is not a solution.

The thing I was arguing is that if we get the tech to escape death, then the same tech will solve overpopulation problem earlier, as it's much easier. Therefore, we don't have to consider overpopulation when discussing whether or not we should freeze people.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics#Revival

[rfvtgb123]

1) Cryonics is mostly a pseudoscientific money making scheme. "In theory it could work" (maybe) if we get around a lot of huge hurdles. Calling it the best idea we have is just an opinion.

2) Explain to me what a frozen mind is. Explain to me how a mind can be frozen, present evidence. Present evidence that the mind is present and intact in a frozen brain. Explain how the mind can be restored, present evidence.

3) That is not the definition (even if it was, my point would still be valid), it is an obvious ruse to get around a problem with he whole concept of freezing and reviving people that is obvious to anyone who has ever eaten frozen broccoli. Also "reprogramming viruses -> nanotech that can do everything": Non sequitur.

4) Again, you are just asserting things. You are making a positive claim and you need to present evidence.

5) I understand that you claimed that before. But you are just pulling that out of the air without evidence or even a good explanation or any reasoning.

6) I have a canvas with the original painting of the mona lisa that was made before the one we can now see at the museum. You're lucky! I would like to sell it to you! Please note that you can not see the painting at the moment because it has been preserved by a sophisticated technique called "meh". So the canvas might look empty at the moment but future nanotechnology will be able to restore it. Interested?

[TeMPOraL]

> 1) Cryonics is mostly a pseudoscientific money making scheme. "In theory it could work" (maybe) if we get around a lot of huge hurdles. Calling it the best idea we have is just an opinion.

Name any other that could work for people dying now.

> 2) Explain to me what a frozen mind is. Explain to me how a mind can be frozen, present evidence.

Frozen mind is a frozen brain. Unless you believe mind is somewhere else, if you freeze the brain you freeze the mind.

> Present evidence that the mind is present and intact in a frozen brain. Explain how the mind can be restored, present evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation#Temperatur... Worked with dogs so far. Just for a very short time (3 hours), but it's a start.

> Also "reprogramming viruses -> nanotech that can do everything": Non sequitur.

Why? Reprogramming viruses is a start and a way to possibly bootstrap our own nanotech. There is nothing blocking us in principle except "it sounds too crazy to be true".

> 4) Again, you are just asserting things. You are making a positive claim and you need to present evidence.

Evidence that nanotech works? Every single living thing around you. Evidence that we already can use it to build stuff? Just google around. Some random things I was refering to in previous comment:

http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_belcher_using_nature_to_grow...

http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_armstrong_architecture_that_...

> 5) I understand that you claimed that before. But you are just pulling that out of the air without evidence or even a good explanation or any reasoning.

The line of reasoning is like this: we will most likely need some form of nanotech to repair damages done to brain cells by freezing, unless you can think of another method that would preserve the structure. This technology is based on manipulating stuff on molecular level. Since dirt contains most of the things we need to build pretty much anything (what do you think living organisms are built from?), then cheap assembly of non-living things a) seems a much easier problem than fixing living stuff, and b) can be done by simpler versions of the said technology.

The detailed lines of reasoning can be found in Drexler's "Engines of Creation 2.0" (http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?BookId=503) and other works referenced there.

> 6) I have a canvas with the original painting of the mona lisa that was made before the one we can now see at the museum. You're lucky! I would like to sell it to you! Please note that you can not see the painting at the moment because it has been preserved by a sophisticated technique called "meh". So the canvas might look empty at the moment but future nanotechnology will be able to restore it. Interested?

Explain to me how "meh" method works. How it preserves information contained in the painting. If it makes physical and information-theoretical sense, then maybe I'll consider buying it :P.

It's hard to present examples for technology that we don't really have right now, but there's this concept of reasoning from first principles, and the said principles do not prohibit molecular nanotechnology better that the one already existing (that is, life).

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine#Examples_of_...

http://www.cosmolearning.com/courses/richard-feynman-lecture...