DT: Cryonics or Cremation?

[_Xenophon]

An interesting new TV series people may be interested in watching from Netflix is called Altered Carbon. It is about this very topic, but be warned it does have violence and nudity.

Did you enjoy the show? I'm a huge fan of Morgan's Kovacs series (the books the show is based on) and have been afraid to try it for fear it is little better than a made for TV movie on the SyFy channel.

[_Xenophon]

. Immortality might be possible one day, but apart form the excessively rich well it be in reach for everyone?

Why not?

Because it could very easily be gated behind prohibitively high costs. Just because a technology exists doesn't mean it is available to the masses.

[_Xenophon]

was not the same sentiment expressed about printed books many many generations ago?

And how long was the gap between the printing press and having affordable in home printers? You don't see any way that cost might be prohibitive on highly advanced medical tech?

probably not much more, if any at all. You assume that time is a significant limitation for that type of person. I do not witness their aggression in "acquiring" as having to the last second behavior.

I assume nothing, I asked a question. I see particular members of families being significantly better at acquiring wealth than others, is it possible immortality could help those that were better at do it for longer?

Ask your local hospital's emergency room.

You're right that there are similarities but I think there is a pretty big gap between "there is medical tech that can extend a persons life within the normal confines of nature" and "live forever" but maybe I'm ridiculous for thinking that would be a thing.

maybe...but "have vs have not" is an ongoing struggle both as an individual and society.

Did I suggest it isn't? What is your point here?

"release"? are you suggesting that there are 2 parts to a human?...and if there is something that can be released then how does that necessarily conclude with "vanish" or "no longer"?

I'm suggesting that in this sci-fi world we are discussing there exists and idea of transferring "you" into VR, your thoughts/feelings/emotions/desires/etc. If we start with that premise the idea of holding that captive forever then I think you can understand what I mean by release.

If it helps in your thinking, imagine I can capture Subgenius in a box and preserve him indefinitely. VR Subgenius will never die, but continues to think, feel and has all the memories of Physical Subgenius. You don't exist somewhere else simultaneously, you are only present in the box because it isn't really your body that made you (in my estimation). Do you think it is morally correct to hold said individual in this state of limbo forever? If you believe in an afterlife wouldn't you want this aberration to be destroyed (for lack of a better word) to ensure that the whole of Subgenius gets to go on to the next life?

overcoming "evil" is an illusion and temporary...it is rather like overcoming hunger or sleepiness, is it not?

I disagree but I'd be interested in your thoughts on how you view "evil" as the same as being sleepy. Perhaps you would like to make a new thread to discuss that? I'd truly like to hear what you are thinking.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Because it could very easily be gated behind prohibitively high costs. Just because a technology exists doesn't mean it is available to the masses.

In the US is there a medical technology or medicine that is only available to the rich?

[_Xenophon]

In the US is there a medical technology or medicine that is only available to the rich?

There is a fair bit of research to suggest that (just like in nearly every other aspect of life) there is a large divide in quality and quantity of service between the rich and poor, I've linked to an article detailing one of the more recent comprehensive studies. We can argue about whether that is as it should be but it is hard to argue it isn't there.

This isn't unique to the US either. Take my personal anecdote form my friend in the UK: During his fight with cancer in the early 2010's he learned that the latest and greatest treatment was not approved by NICE as it was too cost prohibitive per patient. If he had been able he could have afforded to cover that cost out of pocket to receive what would be considered the most advanced option. He couldn't afford that so had to go with approved treatment. Fortunately he still got the generally excellent care available to him and is in remission. Although his has a happy ending, it isn't that difficult to find real world scenarios where access to the highest levels of care are gated behind personal funds.

Put simply, if your insurance (or whatever entity pays for your healthcare) does not cover a treatment you will be forced to pay out of pocket for it, assuming you can afford it. Why would we imagine that things like Cryonics, Consciousness Transferring, Genetic Modification, or any other highly advanced medical tech would be any different?

[_DoubtingThomas]

In the US is there a medical technology or medicine that is only available to the rich?

There is a fair bit of research to suggest that (just like in nearly every other aspect of life) there is a large divide in quality and quantity of service between the rich and poor, I've linked to an article detailing one of the more recent comprehensive studies. We can argue about whether that is as it should be but it is hard to argue it isn't there.

This isn't unique to the US either. Take my personal anecdote form my friend in the UK: During his fight with cancer in the early 2010's he learned that the latest and greatest treatment was not approved by NICE as it was too cost prohibitive per patient. If he had been able he could have afforded to cover that cost out of pocket to receive what would be considered the most advanced option. He couldn't afford that so had to go with approved treatment. Fortunately he still got the generally excellent care available to him and is in remission. Although his has a happy ending, it isn't that difficult to find real world scenarios where access to the highest levels of care are gated behind personal funds.

Put simply, if your insurance (or whatever entity pays for your healthcare) does not cover a treatment you will be forced to pay out of pocket for it, assuming you can afford it.

What you say above is simply sad. I don't like the 21st century.

Why would we imagine that things like Cryonics, Consciousness Transferring, Genetic Modification, or any other highly advanced medical tech would be any different?

It is possible, but there is research that suggests things are getting better. When god-like technology is available I don't see why the world would be a terrible place to live.

[_Themis]

An interesting new TV series people may be interested in watching from Netflix is called Altered Carbon. It is about this very topic, but be warned it does have violence and nudity.

Did you enjoy the show? I'm a huge fan of Morgan's Kovacs series (the books the show is based on) and have been afraid to try it for fear it is little better than a made for TV movie on the SyFy channel.

I thought it was decent, but I would never try to compare books to TV. I prefer tv series over a movie a lot of the time for well written books so that they have time to do the whole story justice.

[_Themis]

What you say above is simply sad. I don't like the 21st century.

I think you should have a way more positive view of things today. Sure you want a perfect world, but so far the world has never been perfect, and the 21 century is a lot better then all the ones before it. Even the poor have way better access to health care then ever before. It would be good to recognize how much better things are today while working to make then even better in the next century.

It is possible, but there is research that suggests things are getting better. When god-like technology is available I don't see why the world would be a terrible place to live.

Sure, but the poor usually don't have access to them until long after the rich because the price starts off so high. I think it is reasonable to think if the science can provide a way to reverse the aging process the cost will start off so expensive only the rich will be able to afford it. This has been true of most new technologies. Only the rich could afford the first automobiles, but now even most hill billies have them.

What happens though if the rich can now start to potentially live forever. Will we be able to get rid of the Putin's and Trump's of the world?

Also if this technology is priced so that most people can afford it to reverse their aging, how will the world, many say is already over populated, need to change so that population growth does go up even more?

[_subgenius]

was not the same sentiment expressed about printed books many many generations ago?

And how long was the gap between the printing press and having affordable in home printers? You don't see any way that cost might be prohibitive on highly advanced medical tech?

the length of that gap is irrelevant and history, especially with tech, proves that this "gap" is unpredictable (arguably even diminishing to negligible). nevertheless, even if we assume any duration for time passage from manifestation to "affordability" we eventually see widespread accessibility. Short term limitations are negligible, if not certainly wise.

probably not much more, if any at all. You assume that time is a significant limitation for that type of person. I do not witness their aggression in "acquiring" as having to the last second behavior.

I assume nothing, I asked a question. I see particular members of families being significantly better at acquiring wealth than others, is it possible immortality could help those that were better at do it for longer?

sure, but could it not also permit those who are slow starters the opportunity to realize and exploit their own ability? To think of "acquiring wealth" as a linear exercise whereas a "head start" is inextricable is arguable and without evidence...in fact, evidence may prove otherwise.

Ask your local hospital's emergency room.

You're right that there are similarities but I think there is a pretty big gap between "there is medical tech that can extend a persons life within the normal confines of nature" and "live forever" but maybe I'm ridiculous for thinking that would be a thing.

you had me at "You're right that there are similarities..."

maybe...but "have vs have not" is an ongoing struggle both as an individual and society.

Did I suggest it isn't? What is your point here?

my point is that your observation there was futile, it was Sisyphus-like.

"release"? are you suggesting that there are 2 parts to a human?...and if there is something that can be released then how does that necessarily conclude with "vanish" or "no longer"?

I'm suggesting that in this sci-fi world we are discussing there exists and idea of transferring "you" into VR, your thoughts/feelings/emotions/desires/etc. If we start with that premise the idea of holding that captive forever then I think you can understand what I mean by release.

my position was that there, perhaps, was not an actual transfer but a reassembly. I guess my point being, that if you consider "you" as being able to exist outside and independent from "your" body then there are significant concessions being made for how "you" is composed.

If it helps in your thinking, imagine I can capture Subgenius in a box and preserve him indefinitely. VR Subgenius will never die, but continues to think, feel and has all the memories of Physical Subgenius. You don't exist somewhere else simultaneously, you are only present in the box because it isn't really your body that made you (in my estimation).

begs a question here, correct? If you are proposing that the human body is just a complex bio-degradable "box" then the "you", not being tethered to said box, would have to have been generated off-site - correct?

Do you think it is morally correct to hold said individual in this state of limbo forever?

A question of morality would have to assume the intention, the motivation for such an action. For example the moral judgment with regard to someone who steals bread always depends on the motivation for said stealing. So, "morally correct" can be appropriate and inappropriate for the circumstance you provide.

If you believe in an afterlife wouldn't you want this aberration to be destroyed (for lack of a better word) to ensure that the whole of Subgenius gets to go on to the next life?

Society does not guarantee, nor should it, the fulfillment of every individual's beliefs. But I appreciate the notion that our "you" is something that can be contained.

overcoming "evil" is an illusion and temporary...it is rather like overcoming hunger or sleepiness, is it not?

I disagree but I'd be interested in your thoughts on how you view "evil" as the same as being sleepy.

Can sleep exist without awake? can good exist without evil? can a person, a "you", exist without knowledge of both? When you last overcame evil was that the last time you will ever need to overcome evil?

Perhaps you would like to make a new thread to discuss that? I'd truly like to hear what you are thinking.

maybe...i did not mean to equate evil with sleepy...more appropriate would be that good=sleep and bad=awake. I had a psych professor speak extensively about how the meaning of life was to get to sleep...that the sum of every human activity could be totaled only to that value....sleep.
Thanks for sharing your inspiring and insightful thoughts.

[_Xenophon]

Can sleep exist without awake? can good exist without evil? can a person, a "you", exist without knowledge of both? When you last overcame evil was that the last time you will ever need to overcome evil?

maybe...i did not mean to equate evil with sleepy...more appropriate would be that good=sleep and bad=awake. I had a psych professor speak extensively about how the meaning of life was to get to sleep...that the sum of every human activity could be totaled only to that value....sleep.
Thanks for sharing your inspiring and insightful thoughts.

Thanks, I think I maybe better understand you point now. I think it is still a pretty big stretch to equate the relationship of sleep/awake or hungry/full to that of good/evil or right/wrong. Sleep and eating are biological needs of our bodies, They are states that we can be in but as of now, a certain amount of sleep and food is required for our survival. I'm not entirely convinced that there is some necessity for people do bad things or to have evil in there lives. If it is (I admit it is hard to imagine a world with no ill in it) I definitely think we have not gotten anywhere near the equilibrium where any less evil in the world would make the good impossible to recognize.

I also think that your stated frame of thinking represented above doesn't account for the relative nature of how we progress as a society when it comes to morality. I require basically an identical amount of caloric intake as my distant ancestors (modifications in genetics aside) as I require about as much sleep, but I experience a fraction of the horrors in my day to day life as my indentured servant forefathers. Hopefully the world will continue to advance in such a way that many generations from now people can look at my life and see it as a difficult time full of hardships but (barring some major medical advances) they will probably still need some shut eye.

Apologies again if I'm misrepresenting the relationship you're trying to suggest.