X-Message-Number: 8027
From:  (Robin Hanson)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Scientists Want Immortality Less than in 1916

Mike Perry writes:
>Cryonics offers the possibility of extended life in a state of mental 
>alertness. This ought to be considered a great benefit to anyone of a 
>scientific bent whose life is taken up with creative pursuits. 

Perhaps most scientists lives are *not* "taken up with creative
pursuits".  Perhaps it is just a career for most of them, so they are
about as interested in retiring from work as most other people.

Ben Best writes:
>    I am an ardent life extensionist and atheist, but if someone asked
>me if I believe in "Immortality" or even if I want to be "Immortal", I 
>am inclined to think I would say "No". 
>   Eternity is more than a LONG time -- it is FOREVER.  It is sometimes 
>hard to remember that FOREVER includes 10exp30 years from now, 10exp1000
>years from now and 10exp10exp1000 years from now.  ...

Yes, it wasn't an ideal survey from a cryonics view.  But do you
really think most respondents had the difference between 10exp4 years
and these numbers in mind in their answers?  I agree we won't really
know until someone does a more cryonics oriented survey.

Steve Bridge writes:
>     I suspect the answer may be somewhat different, although much depends
>on how the survey questions were actually asked.  More likely, IMO, most
>scientists haven't even *thought* about immortality. ... 
>     I wonder what the response would have been if questions were asked
>like: "Do you look forward to death?"  "Do you want to be dead someday?"
 
These wouldn't really be good questions either, since cryonics choices
do have some negatives in the tradeoff.  Perhaps more like: "Would you
be willing to pay $A upon your `death' for a B% chance at revival C
years later, revival to last D years with E% of the the people you now
care about also revived."

Robin D. Hanson    http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8027