[FoRK] Extreme Life Extension: Investing in Cryonics for the Long, Long Term

Jebadiah Moore jebdm at jebdm.net
Mon Jun 21 19:22:08 PDT 2010

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:45 PM, silky <michaelslists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Surely, though, it seems like the most likely (or at least best) way
> to achieve unlimited life is to build yourself into a machine. The
> only amusing question (covered on other lists[1][2], I suppose) is
> which one do you become, when the upload is complete. They'd need to
> kill the human copy, before re-awaking the computer version, but that
> implies part of you would die (the human part). Well, it's interesting
> anyway, but as far as extending life, I would imagine that's the more
> "practical" sci-fi approach.

Why would they have to kill the human copy?  There's no reason both couldn't
exist.  The machine version wouldn't be identical to the human one, of
course, given different experiences, so in that sense they wouldn't be the
"same" person.  But continuity of objects and especially people is an
illusion--you aren't the same "you" as ten seconds ago, you just have
roughly the same memories, plus the extra ten seconds.

I agree about the practicality aspect, but wonder about the feasibility of
the brain scanning technology as well.  In any case, the question that seems
more interesting to me is whether or not a significant chunk of people will
stop having kids post-this technology, since it'd be cheaper/more
efficient/less messy to have a baby consciousness in a machine.

> But I must agree, I've never given any serious thought to extending my
> life via some strategy other than living well.

Why not?

Of course, you probably consider things like going to the hospital as part
of "living well", whereas 200 years ago a lot of our medical technology
would seem outside that scope.

Jebadiah Moore

More information about the FoRK mailing list