shadegrown
Of course that means destructive uploading must also be outlawed ...
Of course. But I don't consider uploading as an effective way of achieving immortality of the self, only of the thought processes. I advocate "inloading", the replacement of neurons as they naturally die by artificial neurons. The process would take a lifetime and is entirely non-destructive and non-disruptive.
Notice that inloading may also be performed with natural neurons as replacements. Artificial neurons will appeal to people with specific requirements, such as survivability in high-acceleration environments like spacecrafts. But I digress...
shadegrown
We confirm the public's worst fears if we advocate foisting technological life extension on others against their will. I'm just sayin'.
Yeah, but I don't really care. Sometimes you have to force people to do what is good for them, even if they don't like it. Our parents forced us to finish our vegetables. Our teachers forced us to do our homework. It took us years before we could understand that it was for our own good. I met some "adults" who still haven't understood that.
People today think they are responsible (and should be "in charge") just because they are adult. But this word - adult - will take on a different meaning once we achieve immortality. 200-year old people may well be called "youngsters" by 1000-year old people. And it could very well take centuries before someone has matured enough to understand the decisions of his elders.
Besides, the "will" of people is surprisingly limited. Do you think a lot of people would insist on having safety belts in their cars, if they weren't forced to ? Do you think they'd respect speed limitations on their own ? Every day, everyone does something against their will. Sometimes we understand why, sometimes we don't.
Forcing people to live longer is just the same thing : we might be insulted for the next 100 years, but someday people will come to their senses and realize that they are better off being alive than being dead.
Compared to immortals, we are but children, no matter how old we are.
shadegrown
I think we should provide everyone with information about their medical options as best as we can and publicly finance medical interventions widely considered beneficial, but the decisions of a sane individual concerning their own body should not be usurped by the state. Otherwise we're pulling out the rug under ourselves.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in France we have a medical institution (ordre des medecins) independant from the government or the administration. All the members are surgeons and doctors. They decide how anything should be treated or cured, and will judge the actions of their peers in litigious cases.
The public has NO SAY about any of that. And it's normal : doctors know what they should do. Engineers like me have no place telling them how to cure people. Likewise, doctors don't tell me how best to write computer programs, the IEEE does.
Speaking strictly of immortality, you seem to assume there would exist, at a given time, more than one way to achieve immortality so that people may face a choice. In reality the probably for that to happen is very low. There will always be, at any time, an optimal way to immortality. Therefore there wouldn't really be a choice : people seeking immortality would all make the same choice.
Moreover, no choice is ever going to be definitive. As long as you are alive, even if it takes forever, you will be able to switch to a different form of immortality. For instance, becoming a cyborg then returning to flesh... remember that "immortality" means you can wait on science and technology to give you what you want or need. It also means that the actions of, say, the government, would no longer have an impact on your lifespan. If that were to change, I'd be the first to take arms and overthrow my government.
You see, giving people ANY form of immortality is equivalent to giving them eternal freedom of choice. At the cost of just ONE obligation : to keep living, even if we have to force them.
It's like giving people a ton of gold. They have the right to throw it away, but they certainly couldn't accuse them of trying to make a decision for them. See what I mean ?
Brian, I'll try to answer question 2 as directly as I can :
If we decide that death is unacceptable, we will NOT unplug terminally-ill people. Therefore, the question of who makes the decision to unplug... is moot. And the decision that death is unacceptable ? Well, is it even a decision ? That's a no-brainer (pun intended).
If we allow people to unplug their "loved ones" (which I find utterly selfish... not wanting to see someone else suffer), the answer is a lot more complex. How can you prove that there is no hope for a person, ever ? Do you know the future ? Can you predict with 100% accuracy that no medical breakthrough will occur before the patient dies ?
If you could, then I would still have people live. What's a few more months or years, compared to death ? (oblivion, forever !)
I'd rather be in pain than be dead. I would rather lose my mind, my senses and be paralyzed, than be dead. I will die eventually, now or in a million years. AFAIK this will be irreversible, so I want to live no matter what, and people should too. I'll be very blunt : anyone who thinks otherwise is a WUSS, a lazy quitter, and I must wonder how they even found the energy to come out of their mother's womb and start breathing.
Jay the Avenger, I agree on everything you said.
Coyote, I think you're right about the Bible : I seem to remember that we will be sent to Heaven or Hell on Judgement Day, and not the day we die. This Judgement Day is supposed to be at the end of time, right ? For us scientists, that means NEVER [lol]
Man oh man, this simple vote ended in a big badass discussion, complete with flames, weapons-grade language and collateral damage... if anything, that shows how immortality still isn't as obvious a choice as it would seem.
Jean
