Hacker News Reader

Comment by fizixer | Hacker News Reader

I'm starting to believe that every form of burial other than cryonics is unethical.

As in you are taking away an opportunity from that human to have another shot at life.

What a tremendous waste of space and energy. Millions of people die every year, where would we store them all? And, even if we do later figure out how to recover people from cryonic storage, who knows what pre-treatment will be required to make them eligible for re-animation?

Would you be okay with storing my genetic code, cyropreserving only my brain, and then growing me a new body in 100-500 years when we've got reanimation down cold (no pun intended)?

I'm fine with being stored in a robotic facility on Mars, the dark side of the Moon, or even at a Lagrange point; anywhere where passive physics can be used to ensure the appropriate temperature is maintained.

If you can't afford a full-body cryo-preservation, you can get a "discount" version by only cryo-preserving your head.

> the dark side of the Moon

... is not really a thing, BTW. Earth's moon is tidally locked to Earth, so one lunar cycle (synodic period, about 29.5 Earth days) is approximately one lunar day.

You'd need to build a train on the moon to keep your cryo chamber in the Moon's shadow, or something similar. I doubt you'd save energy by doing so.

Today I learned! Mars or lagrange points it is! I would even settle for a Saturn moon.

Completely incorrect. For exactly the reason you mention, the back side of the moon is indeed not visible from Earth, and was first photographed by a Soviet satellite in 1959. The only humans who have ever seen it in person were Apollo astronauts.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon

I feel exactly the opposite. Life extension is unethical because it takes away the opportunity for new life to experience the world.

For what it's worth, I think we have a stronger moral responsibility to things that exist than to merely potential people in this regard. There's no reason we need to create new people other than that we want to and people die. I've tried really hard and I can't think of a moral reason we are required to produce new people on any particular schedule. I used to share your position.

My theory is that two people who each live to 40 will together experience more joy than one person who lives to 80. I remember the first time my daughter tasted chocolate. I could get filthy rich and buy a yacht and I don't think I could feel joy like that as an adult. If we maintain population at equilibrium, people living twice as long will mean half as many kids born each year. Half as many first tastes of chocolate. Life extension carries with it an enormous opportunity cost.

The big assumption you're making is that everyone would want another shot at life. I'd be surprised if that were universally true.

No, the big assumption here is that cryonics will ever work.

Or that anyone in the future would want anyone of us have another shot at life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com