|
|
|
|
|
|
by mhartl
4142 days ago
|
|
|
But there is no objectively true philosophy. There is, however, objectively inconsistent philosophy. Bostrom would probably argue that most people believe things (such as valuing individual lives) that are inconsistent with complacency in the face of death. Witness, for example, the obstinate resistance to cryonics even among those who would eagerly seek out an untested and experimental surgery to avoid death at the hands of cancer or heart disease. Unless great care is taken to reason dispassionately, the enormity and apparent intractability of death compromise a rational assessment of its horror. |
|
|
There is a vast difference between an untested, experimental surgery to save you from death and a tested, nonworking procedure that relies on beneficent future people to invent wholly new technologies to save you from death.
Cryonics is not about saving lives, it's about hoping against the evidence to recreate them when they are already gone.
If you want to cheat death, you need to actually conduct an experimental science of cheating death (ie: preserving and restoring people before they are truly dead) rather than just buying the first available option, no matter how scientifically unworkable and technologically unrefined, like a lottery ticket.
The Wright brothers did not bet that their first design for an airplane would work. They experimented until they arrived at a design that did work.