You Are Going to Die(opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
You Are Going to Die
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/you-are-going-to-die/
19 comments
| also faces the challenge of middle class couples not
| wanting to have children because of, among other
| things, the enormous costs of child care. I feel
| like one problem is a built in solution to the other
| problem.
| we either tax working people more so the elderly can maintain
| independent lifestyles, or we reduce benefits to older
| people and force them to depend more on their children.
[Queue, "they made their bed, now they should lay in it!" responses by extreme libertarians.]
Annoying pedantic guy here, I think you meant "cue" instead of queue. Extreme libertarianism isn't about waiting in line. That's extreme socialism, Soviet-style.
Right you are, but I was picturing them queueing up to post an angry reply, so that's probably where the brain fart came from. :P
I'm talking about broad demographic trends. The cohort of women who were near the end of their reproductive years in 1992 are the ones who are just starting to retire now. Among that demographic, about 85% had kids at some point: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-a....
Obviously relying on kids isn't an option for everyone, but I think it's a mutually beneficial option for a larger group of people than seriously consider it.
Obviously relying on kids isn't an option for everyone, but I think it's a mutually beneficial option for a larger group of people than seriously consider it.
I agree, but talking about things like removing supports to encourage others to rely on their children affects everyone. Even among those that had families, what if they had special needs children, or if the parents out-live the children, etc.
Childless adults save a lot of expenses, that money should be invested in golden-years care, not squandered on fancy vacations followed by a demand for an extra share of handout.
You're assuming that everyone is making boat-loads of money. You're also assuming that people without enough money have 'squandered' it on 'fancy vacations.'
I hear what you're saying, and I think american cultural relationships with the elderly is made more complex by our leveraging of end of life care to prolong existence long past self-sustainability. If you've got someone who is being kept alive through severe morbidity, you really have no option but significant professional care. Nursing Homes are expensive, but compared to home-care they are a bargain. Many of the families who place their older relatives into assisted living or nursing homes feel great guilt about the decision, but financially don't know how else to make it work given their relative's needs.
Professional group care facilities are also a symptom of the steady loss of purchasing power for the middle class and those who have less means. We can point fingers at the baseness of the decision to put relatives into these institutions, but the alternatives of home-based care are almost exclusively available to the wealthy, so it ends up being a class-based critique that could do more to empathize with the financial and emotional toll these decisions take.
American culture is not perfect in this regard at all, and I think your point about a general stigma against multigenerational living is well-made. I also think that it's more complex than selfishness or corruption. I'm sure though that we could find some examples of people who prove me wrong and are just assholes to their grandparents, but I don't think that's representative of the general population.
Professional group care facilities are also a symptom of the steady loss of purchasing power for the middle class and those who have less means. We can point fingers at the baseness of the decision to put relatives into these institutions, but the alternatives of home-based care are almost exclusively available to the wealthy, so it ends up being a class-based critique that could do more to empathize with the financial and emotional toll these decisions take.
American culture is not perfect in this regard at all, and I think your point about a general stigma against multigenerational living is well-made. I also think that it's more complex than selfishness or corruption. I'm sure though that we could find some examples of people who prove me wrong and are just assholes to their grandparents, but I don't think that's representative of the general population.
I agree it makes things more complex, but we aren't in fact pro-longing our lives that much. Life expectancy for whites (to take out the effect of demographic changes) at age 65 has gone up all of 5 years since 1950, and life expectancy at age 75 has gone up less than 2 years since 1980 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/022.pdf). Indeed, even much of that difference can be explained by advances in treatment of relatively mundane things like heart attacks that would otherwise kill people in their late 60's, rather than complex care to extend life at the end. That is to say that much of the difference is due to more people making it to 70 and less due to more people making it to 90+.
With you all the way, overall longevity is much the same, but the way we go has changed a great deal.
I don't know if I'd consider heart attacks mundane, they've just become that given western diets. heart attack used to be rarer 100 years ago, but now a combination of longer life and diets that have more negative cardiac impact leads to the growth of heart attack and the subsequent research and improvement in cardiac intervention that can be seen in healthcare today. We've made them mundane through our collective wild ass lifestyle choices.
I don't know if I'd consider heart attacks mundane, they've just become that given western diets. heart attack used to be rarer 100 years ago, but now a combination of longer life and diets that have more negative cardiac impact leads to the growth of heart attack and the subsequent research and improvement in cardiac intervention that can be seen in healthcare today. We've made them mundane through our collective wild ass lifestyle choices.
I don't understand this. We are caring for my grandfather in his home precisely because we cannot afford the astronomical cost of a nursing home (around $10,000 per month).
The decision is usually made to let them go on medicare, which then starts to liquidate their estate until it is gone and then they start paying from there.
Ten THOUSAND dollars per month? You have got to be kidding me. Please tell me you are.
No, that is actually somewhat normal. Even low-end assisted living institutional care is probably $5k/month
So we end up with a fairly bizarre situation: a country that is in crisis about how to take care of retirees, and also faces the challenge of middle class couples not wanting to have children because of, among other things, the enormous costs of child care. I feel like one problem is a built in solution to the other problem
As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about this, I feel that the status quo will be remembered as a peculiar little historical blip.
It is so outrageous to me that my kids' grandparents are lonely as heck wasting away in their 55 & older retirement community in an inhospitable desert wasteland at the same time I have spent literally tens of thousands of dollars on child care. Whenever I see other grandparents actively grandparenting, I am filled with jealous resentment.
As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about this, I feel that the status quo will be remembered as a peculiar little historical blip.
It is so outrageous to me that my kids' grandparents are lonely as heck wasting away in their 55 & older retirement community in an inhospitable desert wasteland at the same time I have spent literally tens of thousands of dollars on child care. Whenever I see other grandparents actively grandparenting, I am filled with jealous resentment.
You are absolutely right, I plan to move my parents in when I start having kids. I still remember going to one of grandparents house everyday after elementary and middle school.
I'm mexican so it's normal to have multi-generational homes but I always wondered why white people don't do this more.
I'm mexican so it's normal to have multi-generational homes but I always wondered why white people don't do this more.
I'm not sure if it's a white people thing specifically, at least other than locally and recently. Maybe more of a "recent American society" thing.
Certainly when I was a kid I was usually watched by my grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, and so on. Only very rarely was I watched by sitters.
Part of it is modern mobility. Parents may live thousands of miles away from the grandparents, and elders are working in their own careers longer nowadays.
Certainly when I was a kid I was usually watched by my grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, and so on. Only very rarely was I watched by sitters.
Part of it is modern mobility. Parents may live thousands of miles away from the grandparents, and elders are working in their own careers longer nowadays.
I think that it's a social status thing. I offered to move my in-laws in here, but I think they see multigenerational living as a sort of failure. These sentiments will change, not in time for my children, but hopefully by the time I am a grandparent.
I'm white and I can tell you it's generally normal here. However we are bit backwards, so it might disappear with progress.
The US survived WWII with considerably less damage and fewer deaths than other technologically-similar countries, with some of the best technology, worldwide influence, and a government system that encouraged productivity. This led to 2 generations of extremely high levels of prosperity relative to the rest of the world. As a result, we've had a period of time where working-class families were able and expected to function with one generation of adults and one generation of children in the home.
I already see signs of this "peculiar little historical blip" ending. I know a lot of adults who are married and/or have children who live with their parents or other relatives. I know a lot of grandparents who babysit their grandchildren multiple days per week. It seems to be fairly common among low income families, and I think it's becoming considerably more common among middle-class families.
I already see signs of this "peculiar little historical blip" ending. I know a lot of adults who are married and/or have children who live with their parents or other relatives. I know a lot of grandparents who babysit their grandchildren multiple days per week. It seems to be fairly common among low income families, and I think it's becoming considerably more common among middle-class families.
It is so outrageous to me that my kids' grandparents are lonely as heck wasting away in their 55 & older retirement community in an inhospitable desert wasteland at the same time I have spent literally tens of thousands of dollars on child care.
I'm not judging but genuine question.. have you ever brought up the potential for co-habitation or discussed this point with them or your SO? Maybe it could work out.
I'm not judging but genuine question.. have you ever brought up the potential for co-habitation or discussed this point with them or your SO? Maybe it could work out.
We floated the offer, but it was met by a pretty lukewarm response. When you spend your whole life running on a treadmill with the carrot of "retiring to a warm place" it is probably really hard to look at moving in with your kids as anything but failure.
desert wasteland? lonely as heck?
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=93189
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=93189
I only wish my in-laws were having that much fun. You nailed the location, though.
> I find the American approach to the elderly a bit bizarre.
It is messed up and you are right it is cultural and also financial. Here are a few reasons I can think of:
* The sense of independence and individualism, be self sufficient, don't depend on other, keep to your own business.
* The health care system is messed up. Having health care tied to the workplace is all kinds of fucked up. Not being able to add parents as regular "dependents" to the health care plans is also messed up. I would expect these from a developing country not from US.
* Increased mobility. Jobs become more transient and families are moving more, sometimes across country. Now the elderly parents have a hard choice, stay in a place they know and have friends or follow the family of the child (who now has to support and provide for a large extended family).
* Living quality expectations. The idea that "if you make this much salary, you fit in this social group and are expected to have this standard of living". Like say someone making $50K taking care of 4 elderly people and 2 kids might have to scale down on the food they eat, vacations they take, type of cars they can buy, parts of town they can afford to live.
It is messed up and you are right it is cultural and also financial. Here are a few reasons I can think of:
* The sense of independence and individualism, be self sufficient, don't depend on other, keep to your own business.
* The health care system is messed up. Having health care tied to the workplace is all kinds of fucked up. Not being able to add parents as regular "dependents" to the health care plans is also messed up. I would expect these from a developing country not from US.
* Increased mobility. Jobs become more transient and families are moving more, sometimes across country. Now the elderly parents have a hard choice, stay in a place they know and have friends or follow the family of the child (who now has to support and provide for a large extended family).
* Living quality expectations. The idea that "if you make this much salary, you fit in this social group and are expected to have this standard of living". Like say someone making $50K taking care of 4 elderly people and 2 kids might have to scale down on the food they eat, vacations they take, type of cars they can buy, parts of town they can afford to live.
>>challenge of middle class couples not wanting to have children because of, among other things, the enormous costs of child care.
This is coming to other parts of the world too. Even in societies like India, neglecting the elderly is setting a trend where most urban middle class couples either settle for one kid or in some cases now don't even bother if they are having medical problems having kids.
Human beings need motivation for doing things. For a while having kids was a matter of pride in societies back. And kids were best retirement and old age guarantees. That has changed, if you all have to face when you grow old is a old age home- Why bother spending crazy money on an additional member in the family? Kids these days are expensive, rude, mean, disobedient, selfish and are likely to dump you in an old age home when you come of age. So why bother having them?
Though societies like India and China are facing population problems, I'm pretty darn sure its pretty much a momentary thing and the trend is likely to be reversed very soon.
Also things like Alimony, abuse of divorce, dowry and domestic violence laws is scaring away men from marriage big time.
In some decades you likely to have a situation where the government may just offer tax breaks or incentives for just getting married and having kids.
This is coming to other parts of the world too. Even in societies like India, neglecting the elderly is setting a trend where most urban middle class couples either settle for one kid or in some cases now don't even bother if they are having medical problems having kids.
Human beings need motivation for doing things. For a while having kids was a matter of pride in societies back. And kids were best retirement and old age guarantees. That has changed, if you all have to face when you grow old is a old age home- Why bother spending crazy money on an additional member in the family? Kids these days are expensive, rude, mean, disobedient, selfish and are likely to dump you in an old age home when you come of age. So why bother having them?
Though societies like India and China are facing population problems, I'm pretty darn sure its pretty much a momentary thing and the trend is likely to be reversed very soon.
Also things like Alimony, abuse of divorce, dowry and domestic violence laws is scaring away men from marriage big time.
In some decades you likely to have a situation where the government may just offer tax breaks or incentives for just getting married and having kids.
Kids these days are expensive, rude, mean, disobedient, selfish
So, same as always, then :)
So, same as always, then :)
Americans are afraid to die, sure, but there's something we're much more afraid of which explains all of this so much better.
We're afraid of old people fucking.
We're afraid to know our parents had sex. We're afraid for our kids to know we have sex. We're afraid of what happens when we get old and wrinkly. We're afraid that when we're old and wrinkly, nobody taut and sexy will want to have sex with us. We're secretly afraid when we're old and wrinkly we won't be able to get it up. And, of course, we're terrified that our widowed grandparents might be having sex with other widowed grandparents.
I think the whole youth and beauty thing falls out of this.
We're afraid of old people fucking.
We're afraid to know our parents had sex. We're afraid for our kids to know we have sex. We're afraid of what happens when we get old and wrinkly. We're afraid that when we're old and wrinkly, nobody taut and sexy will want to have sex with us. We're secretly afraid when we're old and wrinkly we won't be able to get it up. And, of course, we're terrified that our widowed grandparents might be having sex with other widowed grandparents.
I think the whole youth and beauty thing falls out of this.
>I think the whole youth and beauty thing falls out of this.
Yes, you're right but that is more of a side-effect of why we value youth and beauty: our primary drive for sex is to reproduce, and there is a nice bell-curve on the age of a person as to when that is optimal, made clearly obvious by their outward appearance of youth and beauty.
Plenty of older people have sex, and I've heard anecdotally that retirement homes are a good place for finding a partner.
Yes, you're right but that is more of a side-effect of why we value youth and beauty: our primary drive for sex is to reproduce, and there is a nice bell-curve on the age of a person as to when that is optimal, made clearly obvious by their outward appearance of youth and beauty.
Plenty of older people have sex, and I've heard anecdotally that retirement homes are a good place for finding a partner.
> our primary drive for sex is to reproduce
Clearly you and I are not watching the same pornography.
> Plenty of older people have sex
Sure. I'm just positing that the retirement home phenomenon is exacerbated by our cultural fear of finding out about this.
Clearly you and I are not watching the same pornography.
> Plenty of older people have sex
Sure. I'm just positing that the retirement home phenomenon is exacerbated by our cultural fear of finding out about this.
The world doesn't have to be like this. Not anymore. It's too late for my little brother - but Kim Suozzi made it, and it's not too late for you, or any of your loved ones who are still alive.
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics
Hey Eliezer, what do you think it would take to bring the price point of cryonics down to a level where it could become commonplace?
Right now, the primary barriers to its widespread addoption are still probably incredulity and religious objections, but I think those would quickly fall by the wayside if it didn't cost as much as a house.
Perhaps an X-Prize style competition to develop more cost-effective technologies and techniques?
Right now, the primary barriers to its widespread addoption are still probably incredulity and religious objections, but I think those would quickly fall by the wayside if it didn't cost as much as a house.
Perhaps an X-Prize style competition to develop more cost-effective technologies and techniques?
The cost is low enough today that it could be much more common. Even the most expensive set-up (Alcor whole-body, whole life insurance) is about $130/month for a healthy person in their mid 20's. With term life and neuro (head-only), you could cut that in half. Still, only a couple thousand people are signed up.
Alcor has published a cost break-down http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonicsTables.txt and explained it at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonics.html
A big chunk of cash is spent keeping a team on-site while waiting for the person to die. Assisted suicide for the terminally ill would help reduce costs significantly.
Alcor has published a cost break-down http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonicsTables.txt and explained it at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonics.html
A big chunk of cash is spent keeping a team on-site while waiting for the person to die. Assisted suicide for the terminally ill would help reduce costs significantly.
> for a healthy person in their mid 20's
Oh come on, quoting the cheapest price isn't fair or realistic. How about showing us something more representative, or at least quoting the most expensive rate as well?
Oh come on, quoting the cheapest price isn't fair or realistic. How about showing us something more representative, or at least quoting the most expensive rate as well?
I'll address it, but I don't think cost is your true rejection[1]. If I was talking about a highly-experimental cancer treatment, I doubt you'd nitpick the price. Doubly-so if you had cancer. In fact, I bet you'd do your best to estimate its effectiveness.
I didn't quote the cheapest price. I quoted what I pay. I have no idea how much older people pay for life insurance. If you looked at their website, you'd see that Alcor dues are $800/year. Neuropreservation is $80k and whole-body is $200k (http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html). This may sound like a lot, but the standard way to pay is to buy life insurance. When you die, the policy pays Alcor. You can see the cost break-down in my GP comment.
Alcor is expensive. Cryonics Institute is the budget option. CI dues are $120/year and whole-body preservation costs $35k. CI members usually pay with life insurance as well. CI can charge less because they have less staff. Their research budget is practically zero. Most importantly, they won't camp at your deathbed. IIRC, Eliezer is signed up with CI and pays around $300/year. That's the cheapest price possible.
It's often said that getting cryopreserved is the second-worst thing that can happen to you. Cryonics gives you a small chance of living a much longer life. I'll be the first to admit that it's highly unlikely to work. But for myself and many others, the expected value calculation heavily favors signing up. After all, consider the alternative: You die slightly wealthier.
1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/
I didn't quote the cheapest price. I quoted what I pay. I have no idea how much older people pay for life insurance. If you looked at their website, you'd see that Alcor dues are $800/year. Neuropreservation is $80k and whole-body is $200k (http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html). This may sound like a lot, but the standard way to pay is to buy life insurance. When you die, the policy pays Alcor. You can see the cost break-down in my GP comment.
Alcor is expensive. Cryonics Institute is the budget option. CI dues are $120/year and whole-body preservation costs $35k. CI members usually pay with life insurance as well. CI can charge less because they have less staff. Their research budget is practically zero. Most importantly, they won't camp at your deathbed. IIRC, Eliezer is signed up with CI and pays around $300/year. That's the cheapest price possible.
It's often said that getting cryopreserved is the second-worst thing that can happen to you. Cryonics gives you a small chance of living a much longer life. I'll be the first to admit that it's highly unlikely to work. But for myself and many others, the expected value calculation heavily favors signing up. After all, consider the alternative: You die slightly wealthier.
1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/
"A small change" of living after being cryopreserved after you are declared legally dead is less than your chance to win powerball jackpot with single ticket.
The alternative is that you do a little bit more with your life, because you don't spend $120/year and all the mental energy for planning your after-life.
The alternative is that you do a little bit more with your life, because you don't spend $120/year and all the mental energy for planning your after-life.
The probability of revival varies based on who you ask. SEM micrographs of cryopreserved mammal brain tissue show intact nanostructure. One can even see synaptic vesicles with neurotransmitters in them. Also, Alcor's cryopreservation protocol has been used to preserve and revive rabbit kidneys successfully (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781097/).
If cryonics works, this is the sort of evidence you'd expect to see today. Demanding a revival doesn't make sense, because cryonics relies on the vast gap between preservation tech and revival tech.
If cryonics works, this is the sort of evidence you'd expect to see today. Demanding a revival doesn't make sense, because cryonics relies on the vast gap between preservation tech and revival tech.
Much of the cost is due to regulatory burdens rather than technical.
This is just replacing faith in a spiritual deity named God with a material one named Scientific Progress. Defying death will always be lucrative, and the actual demonstration of results will always be forthcoming.
Sounds like a pretty good replacement to me, considering how scientific progress demonstrably exists, has a stellar track record, excellent prospects, &etc &etc.
> Defying death will always be lucrative
As it should be! I'll pay literally every cent I have not to die.
> the actual demonstration of results will always be forthcoming
This is nothing but speculation on your behalf.
> Defying death will always be lucrative
As it should be! I'll pay literally every cent I have not to die.
> the actual demonstration of results will always be forthcoming
This is nothing but speculation on your behalf.
On the contrary, the idea that cryogenics will work is the very definition of speculation.
You write "on the contrary", but your statement didn't actually contradict the parent.
Yes, Cryonics is speculation - no one claims otherwise. But you're also speculating in saying that it will never work, which is what I understood from your statement.
You're very likely right. But the upside of Cryonics actually working would be worth a lot to most people, if they'd stop to think about it, and afaik might very well make a sensible investment.
Yes, Cryonics is speculation - no one claims otherwise. But you're also speculating in saying that it will never work, which is what I understood from your statement.
You're very likely right. But the upside of Cryonics actually working would be worth a lot to most people, if they'd stop to think about it, and afaik might very well make a sensible investment.
If your definition of "sensible investment" is "very low probability of very high payout with very high probability of 100% loss" you must think the lottery is another great example of a sensible investment.
Luckily for humans, we've already developed mathematics to deal with things like "what's a sensible investment" - probability and expected value.
The expected value of lotteries is less than the ticket price, so it's not a sensible investment, if we assume "sensible investment" means maximizing expected value on every dollar spent (which is what you seem to be doing implicitly. Feel free to suggest another definition).
On the other hand, people will tend to put very high utility on living longer, and if cryonics works, the potentially vast number of added years is amazingly valuable.
Run an expected value computation on this, and because of the crazy upside of cryonics, you can have very low levels of confidence that it will actually work, and it will still be worth it from an expected value point of view.
The expected value of lotteries is less than the ticket price, so it's not a sensible investment, if we assume "sensible investment" means maximizing expected value on every dollar spent (which is what you seem to be doing implicitly. Feel free to suggest another definition).
On the other hand, people will tend to put very high utility on living longer, and if cryonics works, the potentially vast number of added years is amazingly valuable.
Run an expected value computation on this, and because of the crazy upside of cryonics, you can have very low levels of confidence that it will actually work, and it will still be worth it from an expected value point of view.
The expected value is the probability of the event times the value of the event. If the probability is zero, it doesn't matter what the value is, the expected value is still zero.
That you've managed to convince yourself that p > 0 with cryonics is just evidence that snake oil production is a better investment.
That you've managed to convince yourself that p > 0 with cryonics is just evidence that snake oil production is a better investment.
So your real argument is, I take it, the the probability of cryonics working is 0? This is different than what I understood before.
In that case, do you have any reason to think it's 0? My main evidence to the contrary is:
1. A smart group of people say that the probability is > 0: (Eliezer Yudkowsky, Robin Hanson, various others at LessWrong). They have nothing to gain from selling me on it, so I don't think they're biased.
2. It seems to me that future medical advances are pretty likely (based on history), including advances leading to being able to fix practically anything that kills people today. And it seems pretty sensible that cryonic preservation basically stops all processes at the moment of death. Combine the two, and it makes sense to me it might be possible to revive people.
I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it.
In that case, do you have any reason to think it's 0? My main evidence to the contrary is:
1. A smart group of people say that the probability is > 0: (Eliezer Yudkowsky, Robin Hanson, various others at LessWrong). They have nothing to gain from selling me on it, so I don't think they're biased.
2. It seems to me that future medical advances are pretty likely (based on history), including advances leading to being able to fix practically anything that kills people today. And it seems pretty sensible that cryonic preservation basically stops all processes at the moment of death. Combine the two, and it makes sense to me it might be possible to revive people.
I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it.
You're ruining all my fun with your calm debating.
> I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it.
Well, we're simply going to have to disagree. I don't find endorsement by smart people compelling. We have plenty of evidence that medicine can extend lifespans, but we have no evidence that we'll figure out a safe way to revive someone cryogenically frozen and no reason to believe extension will reach infinity. If they only solve one of the two problems you're looking at wasting a lot of money on a very strange burial or a very disappointing revival.
If p < 1% but > 0 and it's worth it to you, great. But don't kid yourself about it being an investment. It's a huge gamble. And I retain the right to consider gamblers suckers.
> I'm not saying the probability is > 50%, I'm saying it can be < 1%, but still over 0, and still be worth it.
Well, we're simply going to have to disagree. I don't find endorsement by smart people compelling. We have plenty of evidence that medicine can extend lifespans, but we have no evidence that we'll figure out a safe way to revive someone cryogenically frozen and no reason to believe extension will reach infinity. If they only solve one of the two problems you're looking at wasting a lot of money on a very strange burial or a very disappointing revival.
If p < 1% but > 0 and it's worth it to you, great. But don't kid yourself about it being an investment. It's a huge gamble. And I retain the right to consider gamblers suckers.
"You're ruining all my fun with your calm debating."
That's the nicest thing someone's ever said to me on HN :)
"Well, we're simply going to have to disagree."
Yes, we will. Not that I've signed up to cryonics or anything yet (still checking how it works from outside the US), but I'm almost convinced that it's worth it. Thanks for another interesting viewpoint on the topic.
That's the nicest thing someone's ever said to me on HN :)
"Well, we're simply going to have to disagree."
Yes, we will. Not that I've signed up to cryonics or anything yet (still checking how it works from outside the US), but I'm almost convinced that it's worth it. Thanks for another interesting viewpoint on the topic.
There is no need to insult everyone's intelligence by asserting that anyone that thinks cryonics has a non-zero chance of success has been fooled by "snake oil".
It so happens that quite a few rather smart people believe that cryonics has a non-zero chance of success, so if you have some conclusive evidence to the contrary, let's hear it. Otherwise, your uninformed opinion is just that.
It so happens that quite a few rather smart people believe that cryonics has a non-zero chance of success, so if you have some conclusive evidence to the contrary, let's hear it. Otherwise, your uninformed opinion is just that.
It's not a fair comparison. For starters, right now you have P = 1 probability of 100% loss if you don't sign up (barring divine intervention). And then again, every person who invests in cryonics is making it slightly more probable to work for others, as the money goes to research and accumulating experience in doing cryopreservation. National lottery doesn't make it more probable for everyone to win (or at least for future players) if more people play it.
On the contrary, if nobody plays the lottery, nobody will win. The lottery works by randomly redistributing the ticket fees.
I look forward to hearing precisely how you figure I'm going to lose 100% on an investment I'm not making. You're comparing the 100% likely outcome that I do not live forever having spent my money on non-snake oil with the 100% likely outcome that you do not live forever having spent your money on snake oil. The idea that something impossible is going to be more likely because you're spending money on it is just assuming the outcome you want. Unicorns continue not to exist despite every little girl wishing for them. I point out that spending money on unicorn research isn't going to generate them any faster.
I look forward to hearing precisely how you figure I'm going to lose 100% on an investment I'm not making. You're comparing the 100% likely outcome that I do not live forever having spent my money on non-snake oil with the 100% likely outcome that you do not live forever having spent your money on snake oil. The idea that something impossible is going to be more likely because you're spending money on it is just assuming the outcome you want. Unicorns continue not to exist despite every little girl wishing for them. I point out that spending money on unicorn research isn't going to generate them any faster.
This strikes me as exactly the mindset the author of the NY Times piece is writing against.
I don't see how this is different to making a clone of me when I die.
The point is that "you" are already a slightly modified clone of "you" one hour ago. Personal identity is in the causal continuity, not in being made of the "same" atoms, which doesn't even make physical sense.
So the true death is the information-theoretic death. Does current cryonics technology prevent that? I don't know, but it's a better shot than the alternative.
So the true death is the information-theoretic death. Does current cryonics technology prevent that? I don't know, but it's a better shot than the alternative.
That's assuming "you" are your body.
Here is what I believe instead:
"you" are the countless processes running inside your brain, interacting with each other. When these stop, you're dead. When you're asleep, they interact with each other less, and "you" are reduced. When you're in a coma, they interact with each other much less, and "you" are much reduced. But when you're frozen after your brain activity has stopped, anyone revived out of your body isn't "you" anymore. It'll be someone else with your memories. The only benefit of this would not be to you but to your family and friends (if they're still here) or to projects you're working on but want to have finished even if you won't see the results.
I suppose there's a chance cryonics can be useful, but only if it manages to "preserve" someone before their brain activity stops (which CAN be after the person is clinically dead, e.g. heart stopping != brain dead), and their brain activity continues at a very slow pace, but continues nonetheless.
Here is what I believe instead:
"you" are the countless processes running inside your brain, interacting with each other. When these stop, you're dead. When you're asleep, they interact with each other less, and "you" are reduced. When you're in a coma, they interact with each other much less, and "you" are much reduced. But when you're frozen after your brain activity has stopped, anyone revived out of your body isn't "you" anymore. It'll be someone else with your memories. The only benefit of this would not be to you but to your family and friends (if they're still here) or to projects you're working on but want to have finished even if you won't see the results.
I suppose there's a chance cryonics can be useful, but only if it manages to "preserve" someone before their brain activity stops (which CAN be after the person is clinically dead, e.g. heart stopping != brain dead), and their brain activity continues at a very slow pace, but continues nonetheless.
> When these stop, you're dead.
Assuming as hypothesis that cryonics or some other technology manage to preserve all the information about your mind processes and that we can reinstantiate them in a new substrate, what is exactly the difference?
Exactly what property of these processes is lost when they stop, if hypothetically cryonics stores all the information? There is nothing else!
I think that we have an intuition of having some kind of "ineffable essence", but that's an illusion.
(I could accept that current cryonics is insufficient and that some information is lost in the process, but that is a completely different argument.)
Assuming as hypothesis that cryonics or some other technology manage to preserve all the information about your mind processes and that we can reinstantiate them in a new substrate, what is exactly the difference?
Exactly what property of these processes is lost when they stop, if hypothetically cryonics stores all the information? There is nothing else!
I think that we have an intuition of having some kind of "ineffable essence", but that's an illusion.
(I could accept that current cryonics is insufficient and that some information is lost in the process, but that is a completely different argument.)
You have a computer running an instance of a web server. Now, you make a clone of the computer, including the ram, L1 cache, exact copy. The second computer would then be running an instance of web server as well. Are you saying the second computer's web server instance is the first computer's web server instance?
I don't think so, even if information was perfectly copied!; from this point on whatever happens to the first web server might not happen to the second. Therefore they are difference instances.
Same with human cloning. You can make a perfect clone of me, and that person won't be me, just an identical copy, who from now on will have separate experiences than me. If I die first before the clone is made, it still doesn't make a difference; I am not my clone.
Now, if I died first, and a clone is made, you're arguing my information theoretic death is prevented. but nonetheless my clone isn't me. and I can't tell how cryonics preserving my body after I am _dead_, and then repairing my body, is different to cloning. It's basically just cloning but reusing my existing parts, and if that is correct, the revived person is not me.
The property is "process continuity" - as long as some of the processes that form "me" at this moment will be present in the next, I will continue to, at least be some part, me; If all the processes are stopped, then any processes after that point are no longer me.
I am saying there's a difference between processes running on hardware and the hardware itself. I am the emergent property of all the processes that are running in my body.
I don't think so, even if information was perfectly copied!; from this point on whatever happens to the first web server might not happen to the second. Therefore they are difference instances.
Same with human cloning. You can make a perfect clone of me, and that person won't be me, just an identical copy, who from now on will have separate experiences than me. If I die first before the clone is made, it still doesn't make a difference; I am not my clone.
Now, if I died first, and a clone is made, you're arguing my information theoretic death is prevented. but nonetheless my clone isn't me. and I can't tell how cryonics preserving my body after I am _dead_, and then repairing my body, is different to cloning. It's basically just cloning but reusing my existing parts, and if that is correct, the revived person is not me.
The property is "process continuity" - as long as some of the processes that form "me" at this moment will be present in the next, I will continue to, at least be some part, me; If all the processes are stopped, then any processes after that point are no longer me.
I am saying there's a difference between processes running on hardware and the hardware itself. I am the emergent property of all the processes that are running in my body.
> I can't tell how cryonics preserving my body after I am _dead_, and then repairing my body, is different to cloning
I can't either, but it might be, we just don't know enough to say for sure. People whose hearts have stopped beating have still been brought back, at what point do you declare that when they're brought back they're a "clone" and not their original selves? Where's the line between physical death and "soul"-death?
The idea of there not being any "process continuity" when someone is frozen just seems to be speculation on your part.
I can't either, but it might be, we just don't know enough to say for sure. People whose hearts have stopped beating have still been brought back, at what point do you declare that when they're brought back they're a "clone" and not their original selves? Where's the line between physical death and "soul"-death?
The idea of there not being any "process continuity" when someone is frozen just seems to be speculation on your part.
I'm not saying there can't be process continuity when someone is frozen.
There isn't likely to be process continuity if you are freezing people after they are dead.
There isn't likely to be process continuity if you are freezing people after they are dead.
"Made it" to where? Paradise?
Strangely enough, the observed / estimated mortality rate is around 93% -- the seven billion living people haven't yet died.
On another somber note, even if we could transcribe our consciousness to machines, achieve singularity, etc -- all we do is delay it by another number. The sun is going to burn out, explode an expand, and eventually stars in general will run out of fuel. Is only hope is to change your conscious understanding of life and existence to accept non existence?
On another somber note, even if we could transcribe our consciousness to machines, achieve singularity, etc -- all we do is delay it by another number. The sun is going to burn out, explode an expand, and eventually stars in general will run out of fuel. Is only hope is to change your conscious understanding of life and existence to accept non existence?
"all we do is delay it by another number"
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > 80
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > 80
Thank you. I'm glad someone pointed this out.
There are way too many zeroes in that number.
True, but I think it illustrates his point further: given enough zeroes, it's close enough to infinity that it doesn't matter :)
For anyone interested in the various guesses at what the number could actually be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe...
That said, it does seem even if we gain a mind-boggling level of energy manipulation, 10^20..10^40 years is a rough expectation for regular matter, as we know it, to continue to exist.
That said, it does seem even if we gain a mind-boggling level of energy manipulation, 10^20..10^40 years is a rough expectation for regular matter, as we know it, to continue to exist.
Not if we learn how to reverse entropy!
(http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm)
(http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm)
coping mechanism to accept death.
hopefully, by the sun's expiry date, we would've collected enough energy and advanced technology enough to travel to another star.
We shall ponder reversing entropy and/or escaping the universe in due course.
> to accept non existence?
Absolutely, I can't think of anything worse than living forever. Enjoy this brief period of time you have being alive, and accept that it is finite. The only thing you need to worry about with death is that it doesn't come too early, and to try and avoid it being in absolute agony (if you can).
Absolutely, I can't think of anything worse than living forever. Enjoy this brief period of time you have being alive, and accept that it is finite. The only thing you need to worry about with death is that it doesn't come too early, and to try and avoid it being in absolute agony (if you can).
Not if Aubrey de Grey, Eliezer Yudkowsky or a number of other people succeed. Donate. Death is not the end of everything but it will be the end of you.
Too much government interference right now for that kind of thing to bear fruit. We need radical research not the slow meandering kind that the FDA allows us.
Government is way too incompetent to prevent technical progress.
The real enemy of technical progress is natural complexity of things.
The real enemy of technical progress is natural complexity of things.
You don't need to be competent to destroy. As they say, it's far easier to destroy than it is to create. Government destroys incentive by threats, laws, regulations, direct appropriation, usurping the educational system, etc. etc. etc.
You far underestimate the problem. We are now living in a virtual dark ages compared to what is possible under a proper system of government.
You far underestimate the problem. We are now living in a virtual dark ages compared to what is possible under a proper system of government.
There are 100+ governments on Earth.
Why wouldn't you pick a proper one?
Why wouldn't you pick a proper one?
Why do you suppose that there's a proper one? You clearly need to read more history.
I'd like to point out first that this author has an awful attitude, and I'd also like to point out that his opinion about the "flattened bell curve" of life is factually incorrect. Most studies show a linear improvement in happiness during the twilight years of life - http://www.economist.com/node/17722567 - it is in face a U-shape, the opposite of a bell curve.
Don't let depressed assholes like Tim Kreider affect your outlook on life. You'll note that he, at age 45, is right next to the statistically lowest point of self-reported well-being. One day he, like his Mother, will learn to enjoy the good things in life and not look so morbidly at his pending doom.
Don't let depressed assholes like Tim Kreider affect your outlook on life. You'll note that he, at age 45, is right next to the statistically lowest point of self-reported well-being. One day he, like his Mother, will learn to enjoy the good things in life and not look so morbidly at his pending doom.
It may be an awful attitude, but it coincides remarkably well with mine. And he's not an asshole - just a bit morbid, perhaps.
I think we spend a lot of time and mental energy suppressing the fact of our own eventual decline and death, leading to stress and cognitive dissonance. It's nice to occasionally face the facts directly.
I think we spend a lot of time and mental energy suppressing the fact of our own eventual decline and death, leading to stress and cognitive dissonance. It's nice to occasionally face the facts directly.
We certainly start to come to grips with our own mortality as we age. At 28, I'm having thoughts and concerns about illnesses I never thought I would, even though I'm certainly more aware of what I put into my body than I was just years ago.
I remember a conversation with my mom a few years back, where she started with something like "If I had died a few years ago." That was unfathomable to me because the thought of losing my parents is something I've always wrestled with and my mom is still very much youthful and carefree despite her advancing age.
Its a great piece that highlights the fact that at sometime we can and do come to terms with the fact that we won't be here forever. It's a sobering thought, but one that gives us perspective on life about the things that matter. In addition, realizing that we are mortal makes us want to leave behind a legacy, whether its a family, a product, or a book, we all want to be remembered for something.
I think we all come to this realization at different points in our lives.
I remember a conversation with my mom a few years back, where she started with something like "If I had died a few years ago." That was unfathomable to me because the thought of losing my parents is something I've always wrestled with and my mom is still very much youthful and carefree despite her advancing age.
Its a great piece that highlights the fact that at sometime we can and do come to terms with the fact that we won't be here forever. It's a sobering thought, but one that gives us perspective on life about the things that matter. In addition, realizing that we are mortal makes us want to leave behind a legacy, whether its a family, a product, or a book, we all want to be remembered for something.
I think we all come to this realization at different points in our lives.
Death may be inevitable, but there is life to live yet.
[deleted]
Life-extension as the pursuit of the every-man: " The mortality rate is holding at a scandalous 100 percent. "
What are YOU doing?
What are YOU doing?
The article states that films rarely have infirm or elderly characters, though a great film that does is "Away from her". It isn't the easiest to watch, but it is sobering.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491747/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491747/
Similarly, I just saw the trailer for "the Quartet" with Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, and John Cleese and it looks remarkable.
Most people act as if they are immortal though.
Is there any other way to stay sane?
heh, heh, is sanity even possible given the circumstances?
born to die, blink of an eye, gone, become, everything.
born to die, blink of an eye, gone, become, everything.
What luck, there is no you.
"Hacker News"
"the well are without mercy"
This line jumped out at me, as if taken from my own thoughts of the day. I have found, anytime that I am functioning at anything less than 100%, that almost every other human becomes like a jackal. Nonchalantly, politely divesting me of whatever scraps are left of my spirit, dignity or bank account, with a smile.
The same goes for people who are thought to be helpers, like doctors, nurses, counselors, social workers and the like. Human instincts to prey on the weaker seem to trump professional narratives in many cases.
I see this in the way doctors treat my grandfather. I see it in the way well-off members of the family treat poorer. Life is brutal, and as ever, it's we who make it so.
This line jumped out at me, as if taken from my own thoughts of the day. I have found, anytime that I am functioning at anything less than 100%, that almost every other human becomes like a jackal. Nonchalantly, politely divesting me of whatever scraps are left of my spirit, dignity or bank account, with a smile.
The same goes for people who are thought to be helpers, like doctors, nurses, counselors, social workers and the like. Human instincts to prey on the weaker seem to trump professional narratives in many cases.
I see this in the way doctors treat my grandfather. I see it in the way well-off members of the family treat poorer. Life is brutal, and as ever, it's we who make it so.
You need to find better friends. There is a class of people who pour love and care out of themselves. Most of them aren't startup millionaires, though. (Some are.)
By * all * measurable aspects we're living in the most peaceful time known in all recorded history.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen...
You should make a conscious effort to see this. Otherwise you're going to begin to believe the amygdala-driven "what is the world coming to" type statements.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen...
You should make a conscious effort to see this. Otherwise you're going to begin to believe the amygdala-driven "what is the world coming to" type statements.
This article is an obnoxious meander. It is an "anxiety" blog for heavens sake, not very productive.
Getting care for the elderly is nice. Modern medicine is a mixed blessing, where we live long enough to get old with alzheimers and cancer.
Make the most of the years you get, the last one will be bad no matter what you do, unless you die of a heart attack during sex.
And set up your grandparents with Skype or FaceTime or Hangouts, the joy it brings them is beyond measure. Nothing is better for the cost of a device and Internet connectivity.
Getting care for the elderly is nice. Modern medicine is a mixed blessing, where we live long enough to get old with alzheimers and cancer.
Make the most of the years you get, the last one will be bad no matter what you do, unless you die of a heart attack during sex.
And set up your grandparents with Skype or FaceTime or Hangouts, the joy it brings them is beyond measure. Nothing is better for the cost of a device and Internet connectivity.
This conversation is not good for mental health.
One may argue that the denialist approach to mortality is even worse for mental health.
It is too late for us, but spare your friends and especially your children. We who search for all the answers suffer when find the unanswerable ones. The minds who are lucky don't encounter the darkest questions of life, and we should let them be happy, and help protect their innocence.
Death isn't an unanswerable question. It is, in a world with finite resources, a necessary inevitability. The only question is whether that death comes in orderly cycles, or catastrophically.
Not everyone wants to live forever. My grandparents lived to their 80's. My father, who is a bit over 60, considers that to be a very reasonable number, and I feel the same way. I don't want to still be here in 60+ years straining the resources of my daughter's generation.
Not everyone wants to live forever. My grandparents lived to their 80's. My father, who is a bit over 60, considers that to be a very reasonable number, and I feel the same way. I don't want to still be here in 60+ years straining the resources of my daughter's generation.
Let me know the day you feel you've had your fill and you're ok with pulling the plug, if not due to your body ceasing to function properly.
Maybe I'll feel differently in 50 years, who knows. My dad certainly feels more strongly about not wanting to take unusual measures to extend life than he did 10-20 years ago (when he probably hadn't thought of it much).
Death is not a failure of the design. It's an integral part of it.
Death is not a failure of the design. It's an integral part of it.
> Death is not a failure of the design. It's an integral part of it.
And that's Stockholm syndrome at its maximum expression.
And that's Stockholm syndrome at its maximum expression.
Children can, in child-appropriate ways, understand that death is a part of life. Just today, my five year old daughter pointed out a dead fish floating in a tank at my local fish store. It was neither traumatic nor funny, it just was.
On the contrary, this conversation is essential for mental health.
And water is wet, and the sky is blue.
Even though I was raised in the U.S., I find the American approach to the elderly a bit bizarre. My family is from Bangladesh. My grandparents moved in with their children when they were too old to take care of themselves. Yet here in the U.S., the popular culture strongly pushes back against multi-generational living. So we end up with a fairly bizarre situation: a country that is in crisis about how to take care of retirees, and also faces the challenge of middle class couples not wanting to have children because of, among other things, the enormous costs of child care. I feel like one problem is a built in solution to the other problem.
I'm not trying to criticize anyone's lifestyle choices. But to an extent our lifestyle choices are cultural. See, e.g., the cultural attitudes about young people living with their parents into their 20's in places like Spain versus the U.S. I think one thing the economy and the retirement crisis will force is a changing attitude towards multi-generational living. We're facing a future with fewer workers per retiree. At this instant it's a zero-sum game: we either tax working people more so the elderly can maintain independent lifestyles, or we reduce benefits to older people and force them to depend more on their children. Either way, the efficiencies that are inherent in multi-generational living will be an attractive way to deal with the smaller than expected pie that must be split amongst more people.