From consequentialist perspective, the value of not saving a life is the same as the value of killing someone. In which light, the title of your post becomes, "Is every person really worth not killing?" Try re-reading the argument with this framing in mind.
(Avoiding measures that save lives with certain probability is then equivalent to introducing the corresponding risk of death.)
If the value of not saving a life is the same as the value of killing someone, that's fine. We can do that exercise and re-frame in terms of killing, and do the consequentialist calculation from there. The math is the same. If the goal is to bring ourselves to calculate from the heightened emotional perspective associated with killing, though, it is time to drop that frame and just get back to the math.
In terms of the opening post, the math is going to be similar even for the creation of all possible minds. If we have a good reason to restore every mind that has lived, it seems very probable that we have the exact same reason to create every mind that has not lived.
I'm not sure I see what that value is, though. Even if I want to live forever - and continue to want to live forever right up to the point that I am dead... One second after that point, I no longer care. At that point, only other living minds can find value in having me alive. It's up to them if they want to invest their resources in preserving and re-animating me or prefer to invest more of their resources in keeping themselves alive and creating more novel new minds through reproduction.
The alternatives I'm comparing are a living person dying vs. not dying. Living vs. never having lived is different and harder to evaluate.
Far enough in the future, it might be possible to "cure" them. However, they will still possess toxic memories and thoughts that would greatly distress them now that they are normal. To truly repair them, they would likely need to have many or all of their memories erased. At that point, with an amnesic brain and a cloned body, are they even really the same person, and if not, what was the point of cryopreserving them?
Why not "cure" them by building a mind that can bare them without too much distress? A sufficiently different mind can I think bear any thoughts a human mind "diseased" or not can have. Do such minds necessarily or even probably hold no value to us?
At least 50% of US university students have had a homicidal fantasy this year. Guess how common rape fantasies are. To a more "sensitive" mind something like that could seem horrifying. But how ... can they think such things and still have sympathy and not go around stabbing each other all the time?
...Forming a robust theory of mind and realizing that not everyone thinks or sees the world the same way you do is actually quite difficult. Consider the immense complexity of the world
Many people write these villains off as evil and give their condition not a second thought. But it is quite possible that they actually suffer from some sort of mental illness and are thus not fully responsible for their crimes.
In fact, there is evidence that the brains of serial killers are measurably different from those of normal people.
They are measurably different. The simplest measure is the number of people murdered by them.
We could just keep them as-is and use different methods of keeping them from killing each other.
I ...
I do not understand this obsession with preserving every living mind (it seems to me that EY and LW in general implicitly or explicitly subscribe to the popular notion that a body is a vessel for the mind).
Those who wish to be frozen and can afford it are free to take their chances, those who believe in eternal soul or reincarnation are free to take theirs, those who would rather die forever should not be judged, either.
It sure sucks if you want to get frozen but cannot afford it, and it is a reasonable goal to reduce cost/improve odds of revival, but it is but one of many useful goals to work on.
Life is not math.
It's much harder than the most difficult math that humans are able to do, but the answers are still non-mysterious, and it is your calling and power as a person to seek them.
To truly save them, they would likely need to have many or all of their memories erased.
This is question-begging. Sure, if my experiences and memories are a net negative, such that I and my surroundings are improved by wiping all of that away and starting fresh, then there's no particular reason to preserve those experiences and memories. Of course.
OTOH, if they're a net positive, then there is.
I am hesitant, and I think many others may be hesitant to engage in a debate on eugenics, not because it might trigger strong feelings (I think we as a community are capable of setting those aside), but because of the way it might be perceived by casual visitors to the site.
It would be nice if we could get some sort of agreement to ignore political correctness/face the consequences of political incorrectness and engage in what I think would be a very healthy debate.
If erasing the memories were done by artificially stimulating the mechanism that causes normal forgetting, I think they'd be the same person. After all, I don't consider myself a new person whenever I forget something. But maybe there's something I'm missing.
To deny any thought feeling or memory or the mind that harbored it... seems a bit extreme i don't know if theirs a term for it ? Maybe we should save our imperfections they in many ways are what make us human.
(I'm sorry if my entry's are not as polished as most I'm a little unrefined.)
...Consider those who have demonstrated through their actions that they are best kept excluded from society at large. John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer would be prime examples. Many people write these villains off as evil and give their condition not a second thought. But it is quite possible that they actually suffer from some sort of mental illness and are thus not fully responsible for their crimes. In fact, there is evidence that the brains of serial killers are measurably different from those of normal people. Far enough in the future, it might be poss
I ask a diferent question: in a time constrain scenario, what lives are worth dying? Some people are elevating the risk of human extintion – producting weapons of mass destruction -- , perhaps for this they deserve to die?
Voted you down. This is deontologist thought in transhumanist wrapping paper.
...Ignoring the debate concerning the merits of eternal paradise itself and the question of Heaven's existence, I would like to question the assumption that every soul is worth preserving for posterity.
Consider those who have demonstrated through their actions that they are best kept excluded from society at large. John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer would be prime examples. Many people write these villains off as evil and give their condition not a second thought. But it is quite p
Singularitarians frequently lament the irrevocably dead and the lack of widespread application of cryonics. Many cryonocists feel that as many lives as possible should be (and in a more rational world, would be) cryopreserved. Eliezer Yudkowsky, in an update to the touching note on the death of his younger brother Yehuda, forcefully expressed this sentiment:
"I stand there, and instead of reciting Tehillim I look at the outline on the grass of my little brother's grave. Beneath this thin rectangle in the dirt lies my brother's coffin, and within that coffin lie his bones, and perhaps decaying flesh if any remains. There is nothing here or anywhere of my little brother's self. His brain's information is destroyed. Yehuda wasn't signed up for cryonics and his body wasn't identified until three days later; but freezing could have been, should have been standard procedure for anonymous patients. The hospital that should have removed Yehuda's head when his heart stopped beating, and preserved him in liquid nitrogen to await rescue, instead laid him out on a slab. Why is the human species still doing this? Why do we still bury our dead? We have all the information we need in order to know better..."
Ignoring the debate concerning the merits of cryopreservation itself and the feasibility of mass cryonics, I would like to question the assumption that every life is worth preserving for posterity.
Consider those who have demonstrated through their actions that they are best kept excluded from society at large. John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer would be prime examples. Many people write these villains off as evil and give their condition not a second thought. But it is quite possible that they actually suffer from some sort of mental illness and are thus not fully responsible for their crimes. In fact, there is evidence that the brains of serial killers are measurably different from those of normal people. Far enough in the future, it might be possible to "cure" them. However, they will still possess toxic memories and thoughts that would greatly distress them now that they are normal. To truly repair them, they would likely need to have many or all of their memories erased. At that point, with an amnesic brain and a cloned body, are they even really the same person, and if not, what was the point of cryopreserving them?
Forming a robust theory of mind and realizing that not everyone thinks or sees the world the same way you do is actually quite difficult. Consider the immense complexity of the world we live in and the staggering scope of thoughts that can possibly be thought as a result. If cryopreservation means first and foremost mind preservation, maybe there are some minds that just shouldn't be preserved. Maybe the future would be a better, happier place without certain thoughts, feelings and memories--and without the minds that harbor them.
Personally, I think the assumption of "better safe than sorry" is a good-enough justification for mass cryonics (or for cryonics generally), but I think that assumption, like any, should at least be questioned.