Reasons for and against cryonics and immortality

Versión en español.

“It is an elementary consequence of probability theory that even very improbable outcomes are very likely to happen, if we wait long enough”
–Huw Price (Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time)

Pros:

  • All we (in general) have a will to live and / or fear of death. [I believe this]
  • We were (metaphorically) “designed” by nature with the will to live as much as possible [I believe this]
  • Nature will give us pleasure when we met those objectives and pain otherwise [I think this is partially true, because we weren’t designed to reproduce ourselves but our genes]
  • Therefore, we are gonna get pleasure if we get it (to live as much as possible) and pain if we don’t [I just don’t believe this. I explain it below]

Cons:

  • Technical problems (but they can be fixed in the future, so this is not a big issue)
  • Philosophical problems: seems that we are resurrecting the “you” but not the “I” (Empty Individualism)
  • At least until now, I consider that most of the sentient beings have had a life of negative net balance, therefore, I think it is not a good idea to create more life (in general), at least, until we can reasonably guarantee that the new life be happy. (This can be fixed in the future, so it is not a big problem, the problem comes next).
  • I think there’s a lack of symmetry among good and bad things, at least up to now. Extremely bad things does not counterbalance extremely good things. This is really a big issue and I can’t see how we can fix it. I’d change my mind if someone could explain to me how we can ensure that we avoid extremely bad things in the future.
  • In a infinite time, very improbable extremely bad things will happen.
  • In the future, we, humans of the past, could be as mice or monkeys to the post-humans of the future. And post-humans of the future could treat us as we treat now mice and monkeys in animal experimentation.

How to lower the risks of intense suffering associated with cryonics:

  • We can accelerate the technology for immortality, in order to discover how to thaw and resuscitate the bodies as soon as possible, and thus the bodies will be the minimum time without being able to make decisions for themselves under the control of other people. Although for this to make sense it may be necessary previously to have discovered how to cure all kinds of diseases, such as cancer. But the problem is that the risk remains in immortality: in a potentially infinite time, all kinds of bad things will happen with total certainty.
  • As time passes, sentient beings become more and more ethical and altruistic. I hope so. I have designed and executed some simulations to investigate this idea, but it is not entirely clear. If we accelerate this process, for example, by promoting ethics, we will reduce the risks of intense suffering associated with cryonics.
  • The risks can decrease if there is a Friendly Artificial General Intelligence ruling the world, observing and taking care of all sentient beings, including frozen ones.
  • We can make intentional modifications in our genetic code aimed at avoiding extreme pain (replacing it with gradients of happiness) and making us more ethical and more altruistic.

A longer explanation of my main point:

I consider that neuroscience advances and brain cryonization are associated with a high risk of extreme and lasting suffering.

Imagine for a minute that cryonization and brain resuscitation works, and gets the “I” alive (or resurrect it), even if you think this is impossible. Just imagine that it works.

If it works, what probability do you think there is about being subject to intense torture if your body is locked up in the facilities of a scientific complex, under a strange legal status, surrounded by the kind of scientists (some of them) who would do horrible experiments on mice or monkeys? What probability do you think there is that in a potentially infinite time, any of those scientists decide and can experiment with you horrible techniques, not only with pigs and mice, but with humans? During a potentially unlimited time. Again and again. And again.

See this link
Human torture and experimentation by dates.

Experimentation with non-human animals is horrible as well, and its incidence is much greater.

In the future, we, humans of the past, could be as mice or monkeys to the post-humans of the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing

Only in Spain and in only one year, 68,000 severe experiments, which means “severe suffering or distress or moderate long-term pain, suffering or distress or whose well-being or general condition has suffered a significant deterioration as a result of the procedure.”

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/produccion-y-mercados-ganaderos/informedeusodeanimalesen2015_tcm7-436494.pdf

Posted by Manu Herrán

Founder at Sentience Research. Associate at the Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.