In my morning paper, today’s possible apocalypse was mentioned in five comics, but no where else. I’ve heard many mention the issue of the last few weeks, but mostly mocking it; none seem remotely concerned. Why so many mentions of something so few believe? To mock it of course – to enjoy feeling superior to fools who take such things seriously.
My point is that cryonicists don't seem to strive to produce good evidence for their claims, which is a: bad sign and b: decision making is more subtle than naive expected utility maximization; en masse, not signing up unless there's reasonably expected evidence can have higher utility as you would still almost certainly sign up for cryonics if it wasn't some sort of self delusion/scam mixture.
Unfortunately, current law in the U.S. also mandates autopsies in cases of suspected suicide. :(
"The whole ideology (the anti tax variety at least) is based upon being blind to the dependence of "private property" on wilful cooperation of others."Being one of those blind-to-dependence Libertarians, i have no idea what you're talking about.
Many libertarians (not you) see private property as a natural right rather than a social construct.
"Taxation is theft" epitomizes the outlook in question, which is widespread among libertarians if not in alt-right circles.
Sorry if I sounded like the recommendation to add cryonics to Medicaid and Medicare was seriously intended. I intended to bring out the ironies in Robin's positions on medicine versus cryonics.
Yes, I wouldn't have relied on so small a sample size if I didn't have agreeing "priors."
Carl Shulman essentially substantiates. The reason I would have predicted that cryonics is a libertarian proclivity is that libertarians tend to be egoists, and the last thing an egoist will part with is his own existence. As they say, it's their most valuable property.
They overvalue their existence because they are social atomists.
@google-8a859b151b507f070cefe46a035c0a99:disqus "The whole ideology (the anti tax variety at least) is based upon being blind to the dependence of "private property" on wilful cooperation of others."
Being one of those blind-to-dependence Libertarians, i have no idea what you're talking about.
Libertarians being more blind to the dependence of such things on other's good will. The whole ideology (the anti tax variety at least) is based upon being blind to the dependence of "private property" on wilful cooperation of others.
Carl,thanks for the information. So what do you make of those numbers?
Okay, that's interesting. So does the rejection of cryonics for humans carry over to experiments on other mammals? If yes/no, what does that suggest?
Before attributing religious meaning to all support for cryonics, it would be reasonable to first admit that opinions on the prospects for successful cryonic resurrection vary widely for scientific reasons, and not just out varying capacities to deal with the certainty of our own deaths (particularly in the case of those weak-minded Right-Libertarians ;-))
Suppose that a cryonic head or body could be resurrected with all episodic memory deleted. Personal skills (including language related) remain intact, but the individual is otherwise 'generalized', or 'clean-slated', on the basis that the memories of the prior life are no longer valid in the new 'life'/era/context. In a sense, the 'old' person has died, because the 'new' person has no memories of that 'old' person. Now suppose this episodic memory cleansing were made mandatory, on the grounds that those retaining their old episodic memory set would be emotionally ungrounded and unstable. In that case, would the support for cryonics remain? If yes, cryonics is not so much about overcoming the dread of death. If no, it is.
Google reveals a survey, from the late 1980s, of Alcor cryonics members. There were 36 Libertarians to 12 Republicans and 7 Democrats:http://www.alcor.org/cryoni...
@f26939f398e5b2e21ea353b06370c426:disqus "Are cryonicists all right-libertarians? If so, what's the connection?"
That's a small subset to make a generalization from. You yourself want cryonics to be a listed treatment, and i believe you're a Democratic Centralist. Thinking out loud about a connection between right-Libertarians and cryonics seems like a motivated search, as in not just a curiosity or necessity driven one. True?
@5dcdf28d944831f2fb87d48b81500c66:disqus "Clearly the majority of people who are on antidepressants don't commit such acts.""I'd love to see the scientific evidence establishing a causal link between antidepressants and shooting rampages."
You want to see a majority or a causal link? I think your strawman detection might be a false positive. The point is, a large majority of school shooters have been found to be taking antidepressants, while i'm not sure if any of them have been found to be using homeopathic treatments (your claims to severe side effects notwithstanding). That points to something worth investigating.
If you're claiming that school shooters represent a subset of those already detected as having mental issues and on medication as a consequence, then general restrictions on gun ownership are probably not required to eliminate school shootings - only those on psychiatric medication need be prevented from having access to guns. That strikes me as an argument someone from the gun lobby would make.
"I suppose it is published in the same journal cryonics research is published, isn't it?"
Argument from authority is the antithesis of true science.
"Certainly not like homeopathic snake oil.""Certainly it's not cheap for a placebo."
Placebo or snake oil, or, placebo = snake oil ?
I did think some more on cryonics and it seems to me that:There's relatively simple experiments with perfusion of variety of animal brains, or ideally, cadaver brains, at different times after death, which could be done to drastically improve the outlook of cryonics with regards to, at least, not shredding the brain.
The only thing I can find is study on a rabbit. The usual instinctive reaction to such cases is "not going to sign up", which may seem irrational based on naive expected value estimate, but may be rational response to situation where more information can be made available by another party - you create higher payoff for e.g. doing wider range of actual experiments (ideally on cadavers but at least cows/dogs/etc. not just 1 rabbit) to see if the cryoprotectants do reach the whole brain. Note that expected value of not signing up until a condition is met can be higher than expected value of signing up.
Plastination looks intriguing.
Is it just a lack of faith in science that has prevented Cryonics rights (free procedures and storage) from becoming an issue?
Well, I can't see Robin Hanson, Peter Thiel, or Eliezer Yudkowsky advocating free head freezing on demand. Are cryonicists all right-libertarians? If so, what's the connection?
"This seems related to the wide-spread rejection of cryonics in a world that vastly overspends on end of life medicine"
How related is the rejection of cryonics to human cloning? The cryonics customer is engaging in an activity that could be vaguely regarded as self-cloning, so cryonics is a cloning type moral issue. Cloning is a form of copying. Why copy anything?
1. The copied item is both unique and valuable (relative to the copying process), and not worth risking to a single instance.
2. The 1 -> many relationship of the copying process is more efficient than multiple one-off production.
3. A means to consistency. This might be compared to the value of diversity in the entity set.
In regards to cryonics, 1. suggests the assertion of self-assigned status - I am uniquely valuable and worth storing safely, pending resurrection. Self-assigned status is morally "illegal". In regards to cloning (and somewhat to cryonics), 2. implies a change in the status and dynamics of social groups. Not requiring the wombs of women or the semen of men to create new humans or resurrect existing humans carries big social implications and uncertainty. Cryonics customers are "messing" with a lot of evolutionary and cultural selection, without a mandate. 3. implies a loss of genetic diversity, which might cause an association with the disgust reaction to inbreeding.
I like your implicit equating of those suffering from depression with "crazy people". Very scientific.Strawman detected. Clearly the majority of people who are on antidepressants don't commit such acts. People who do obviously are either misdiagnosed as depressed or have a disease that mimics or includes depression.
Let's hope the severe side-effects don't include shooting rampages like the crazies put on psychiatric drugs, where, in spite of the claimed medical expertise, doesn't seem to stop these people from doing just that.I'd love to see the scientific evidence establishing a causal link between antidepressants and shooting rampages. I suppose it is published in the same journal cryonics research is published, isn't it?
"real treatment" - is that like proper medication?Certainly not like homeopathic snake oil.
That's fine for personal stuff or Robinson Crusoe, but at the social level, cooperation and competition are the best source of those virtues, not some personal God. Modern social organization is God 2.0.