[ExI] [ZS] [cryo] Nick Bostrom, Anders Sandberg, Stuart Armstrong to be frozen after death

[Mike Dougherty]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Gregory Lewis <gjlewis37 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Possibly. But it requires a lot of externalities to line up in the right way
> to get to the happy conclusion that life extension gets both *longer* and
> *more* lives. Given some upper bound (on lifespan, negentropy, whatever)
> which doesn't happily rise in step with life-extension tech, ultimately
> others taking more mean there is less for the rest, and if we all occupy our
> 'person-slot' in the universe for 10x longer, there will be about 10x fewer
> people over history.

I think that's ok.  Evolution would prefer 5 generations per 100
years.  I prefer my lifetime over at least that many years, possibly
more.

If people stopped having unwanted children, or possibly worse: having
children because the feel compelled to do so by societal mores - then
those already living would have less competition for resources.  The
argument above usually puts my old-self as a greedy methuselah somehow
"stealing" quality of life from children.  If those children aren't
born, the argument falls apart.

We're a long way from responsible/intelligent procreation as a
species.  Of course we are.  Selfish genes don't care about the
species, only maximizing propagation.  I'd say spike's 23andme posts
have illustrated how well those selfish genes are working despite our
cultural memes for fidelity and restraint.  :)