
As more hackers start to die, when do we finally do something about it? - lsparrish
https://plus.google.com/104271274646422270766/posts/WoFGnsPBmwN
======
beloch
When you're healthy, living forever sounds great.

When you've experienced a few minor illnesses and a bit of short-lived pain,
such as a broken limb or two, living forever still sounds great.

I had a (thankfully temporary) condition that resulted in chronic pain for
about a year. It wasn't terrible pain, but pain that never goes away wears you
down in a way that horrible, but short-lived, pain simply doesn't. After a
while you just want it to stop. Before this period in my life I was of the
opinion that immortality was worth almost anything. Now I believe that quality
of life is just as important, if not more so. I would not want to live forever
if it involved even a small amount of chronic pain. I used to think a little
pain would be a small price to pay. That was ignorance.

Jobs and Ritchie both died from diseases that probably gave them a good deal
of chronic pain over the last years of their lives. I can completely
understand why extending their lives was not desirable to them.

~~~
true_religion
> I can completely understand why extending their lives was not desirable to
> them.

I think its presumed that life extension would also come with improved health.
What kills you is decline due to chronic conditions. Target that and stop the
declined and you gain both long-life, and healthy life.

~~~
beloch
There are a lot of things that can cause chronic pain without threatening your
life. We would have to learn how fix all of these non-life-threatening things
in addition to what causes death, or everlasting life will lead to everlasting
pain with absolute certainty.

~~~
lsparrish
You seem to be omitting reversible cryopreservation from the scenario. All you
would need to do is freeze yourself until a cure is found for whatever is
causing you pain. But this seems like a non-likely thought experiment scenario
anyway -- I can't imagine being able to regenerate body parts and prevent
aging from being lethal, yet being unable to comprehensively prevent pain.

------
SeoxyS
These visionary geniuses and hackers' most brilliant breakthrough was the
realization of the inevitable fact that sooner or later, we all die. The trick
is in channeling that truth as a motivator. We must strive to achieve as much
as possible today, because there might not be a tomorrow.

Steve Jobs:

 _No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die
to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever
escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the
single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the
old to make way for the new._

 _Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever
encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything
— all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure –
these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly
important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to
avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked.
There is no reason not to follow your heart._

Steve Jobs is the single worst example that the OP could've picked as a
candidate for cryopreservation, as it goes against everything he (and I)
believes in.

~~~
mmaro
This is a false dichotomy. You can strive to achieve as much as possible
today, as well as attempt a second chance at life through cryonics.

~~~
wazoox
What does lead you to believe that cryonics give you a second chance? It
simply doesn't add up. It needs so many breakthroughs that you'd better get
mummified; at least you'd have a reasonable chance for your corpse to stay
available for some significant length of time.

~~~
lsparrish
Chemical fixation would be the second in line, but the quality sucks compared
to cryonics. Freeze-dried brains are even worse.

------
mmaro
Anyone remotely interested in cryonics should go read about it on
LessWrong[1], instead of reading the same ol' ambivalent/pro-death comments.
The only good reasons (that I can think of right now) not to sign up are if
(1) you can't afford the ~$50/month or whatever your life insurance premiums +
member dues would be, or (2) you rely on the financial support of people who
are strongly anti-cryonics.

Keep in mind that after you suffer your serious accident/illness, you won't
have the time/money/energy to sign up for cryonics, and you'll have more
trouble convincing your next of kin to support you. And you probably won't be
able to get any life insurance to pay for it, obviously.

[1] <http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics>

~~~
dpark
> _The only good reasons (that I can think of right now) not to sign up are if
> (1) you can't afford the ~$50/month or whatever your life insurance premiums
> + member dues would be, or (2) you rely on the financial support of people
> who are strongly anti-cryonics._

Or you think it's dumb and fruitless and a waste of money. We don't have any
way of predicting the expected value of cryopreservation. It could be that
after you get frozen, an earthquake/tsunami takes out the power and you thaw.
Or the company goes under. Or you get abandoned. Or any number of other
things.

How likely are you to be unfrozen/cured/revived? No one can say for sure, but
it's probably pretty unlikely. On the other hand, what's the likelihood that
your estate can do something useful with an extra $25k? That's pretty likely.

~~~
thret
If there's a non-zero chance that you will be returned to life at some point
in the future, then however unlikely that chance is worth 25k. It is a
lottery; the cost is small compared to the payoff and it rationalises hope.

~~~
jpulgarin
I have discovered a way of extending anyone's life. I will extend yours if you
send me 25k via paypal. You can find my email in my profile. Note that this is
a non-zero chance.

~~~
lsparrish
There's an astronomically high probability that you're saying this to make a
point, not because you have secret information. That fits perfectly with my
model of expected human behavior. The question would be why your model of
expected cryobiology/physics/future scientific development places its chance
of success in anything like a similarly low category.

~~~
jpulgarin
I'm just arbitraging thret's belief that any non-zero chance of returning to
life is worth 25k - nothing to do with cryonics.

------
cydonian_monk
It's not the lack of cryo arrangements that's the problem. (I've considered
cryo myself, but I'm not impressed with the likelyhood of success. Too many
fracturing events, not to mention the likely extreme costs of recovery post-
freezer. But if you're looking for more life, it's your only potential
option.) The problem is that we haven't been focusing enough on the real
issue: Death. Finding ways to extend human life indefinitely should be our
generation's "Space Race." Our Apollo Program. Want to create jobs? Help us
find the cure. Instead we obsess over petty things. (And I'm as guilty as the
rest.)

But regardless, there is one truth we all have to face: We will one day die.
Even should you beat the biological death, should you somehow survive the
backlash of fellow humans who reject your bid for immortality, you will still
fail. Because one day the Universe will either run out of energy or contract
back upon itself, at which point you will either starve or be crushed. You
have a few billion years to find an answer for that.

~~~
davidu
I hadn't considered my greatest fear, but now I recognize it: Finding ways to
extend human life indefinitely should be our generation's "Space Race."

We already suffer from over-population and pollution. Death is a key piece of
the demographic shift, and just about every other anthropological process
related to the change and evolution of culture and society.

Living longer would not increase our society's capability or capacity, it
would almost assuredly decrease it, not to mention life would be exceptionally
crowded, everywhere.

~~~
monkeypizza
>Living longer would not increase our society's capability or capacity, it
would almost assuredly decrease it, not to mention life would be exceptionally
crowded, everywhere.

I think it would improve our capacity. Look at how much investment is put into
someone before they can productively give back to the economy - kids take
years of being raised, teacher's time, plus years of experience before they
start paying their own way.

I think life extension would spread that capital cost out over a much longer
productive life - right now say years 1-20 you are a resource drain, and the
same for years 65-90. So you are producing stuff for society just half of your
life (yet, this is enough for a surplus - the quality of goods output today in
the world is continuously increasing) If we double lifespan it would double
the productive years, so each life would be MUCH more productive.

That's not even including the fact that the second (doubled) productive
section could take advantage of the first section's experience. So if we
doubled each individual's productive lifetime, (by increasing total lifespan
by just 50%) it would most likely _more_ than double their total output.

Imagine how valuable someone who had 40 years of experience, plus a 20 year
old's fast mind would be?

[note that by productivity I mean the amount of human / natural resources a
person takes up; kids take up parents & teacher's time, older people take up
highly trained doctor's time. People who are "productive" are generating more
valuable services than they're taking up. So, people spending longer within
that middle section would make them even more of a gain for the world]

------
bartonfink
The choices already exist. Dennis Ritchie and Steve Jobs could certainly have
cryopreserved themselves if they wanted to. It's not like Alcor is unknown,
especially in the circles Ritchie and Jobs were in.

What do you (since this is a self post) think we as society should do about
it?

~~~
lsparrish
Good question. Here are some possible answers:

* Better social networking for cryonics participants.

* More persuasive essays on the topic.

* New blood in the movement.

* Stronger associations to stronger movements.

* Different or more aggressive marketing/promotion tactics.

* Prizes similar to the X-Prize for demonstrating reversible cryopreservation on a small scale (e.g. organs)

* (Maybe unrealistic?) Government funding for cryobiology, specifically as pertains to brain preservation, and secondarily as pertains to whole organisms.

One major thing I'm noticing is that cryonics frequently seems to be seen as a
low-status thing, despite being popularly associated with wealthy
billionaires. There seems to be a paleo-humanistic (as I call it) tendency to
rationalize and even glorify death as part of the grand cycle of life, and
cryonics seems to be directly set against that. This may be why so many of the
old sci-fi greats (Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, etc.) opted out. AFACT most
living sci-fi and great humanistic writers of the aging generation (Terry
Pratchett, David Brin, and so forth) are not signed up nor particularly
supportive. I'm not sure how to change this narrative but I strongly feel
there is a problem with it.

Another big problem I see is that cryonics tends to be popularly associated
with selfishness -- yet it is compatible with altruism, and in fact has
exceptional potential to save _billions_ of lives if pursued aggressively (and
if it works). Technically, it seems like one need not be concerned with one's
own survival at all to be in favor of cryopreserving the world (particularly
when economies of scale are factored in).

~~~
ryandvm
What you're seeing isn't a status thing, it's selection bias. The smart people
you've mentioned generally aren't the type of people to partake in such hokum.

------
cbr
I don't think cryopreservation is that likely to work. Even its proponents are
not that confident in it. I've collected some estimates:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajn1LpstEUO_dE0...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajn1LpstEUO_dE00ZVVfa3pzX2Y2dk9mWWRKOUVkWlE&hl=en_US#gid=0)

~~~
Udo
Some of these are quite interesting though the "probabilities" are completely
arbitrary, of course. From what I can gather the reasons against cryo can be
clustered into these:

 _1) Access failure: an external event prevents the initiation of your cryo-
preservation, such as your relatives and/or your hospital insisting on your
death taking place as scheduled, or other things preventing you from having
access to the facilities needed._ \- These dangers are substantial. I'd wager
that the majority of society is against even simple life extension, and thus
even more opposed to cryo. There is also no way to mitigate this risk, since
people tend not to die in circumstances under their direct control. Your best
bet is probably to convince a close family member to act on your behalf when
the time comes, because family has a lot of authority with... you know, the
authorities.

 _2) Persistence failure: things that cause your preserved brain to be
destroyed, such as war, system outages, economic trouble, or global
catastrophes (including new laws or a radical culture shift)._ \- The
probability of just one of these occurring is pretty high, but there is simply
no way to accurately estimate this risk. However, the probability of these
events leading to your demise is lowered if more people adopt cryo
preservation.

 _3) Preservation/restauration failure: some technical reason prevents your
pattern from being restored into a working copy. These include excessive
tissue damage before or during storage, or technical problems in
reconstructing your brain back into working order._ \- Compared to the other
risks, this one is probably very low. If you're in cryo, time is on your side.
While I think that biological reanimation is most likely not on the table when
it comes to brains conserved with current technologies, digital restauration
looks like a very promising avenue.

 _4) Religious/philosophical problems: as failure modes go, these certainly
stand out. Technically, they don't belong here, nevertheless some variant of
religious reasoning is included in many of these lists._ \- I'm going to
discard these points though (including the "probability" that our minds are
not entirely based on a material substrate), because if those matter to
someone the discussion is already over.

~~~
cbr
Your "1" doesn't include the chance that not everything we care about is
preserved with current techniques. Also people might make a mistake in the
freezing process. It's very difficult to develop any process without the
feedback of whether it is working.

Your "3" doesn't include the chance that restoration is impossible, overly
expensive, or not done for some other reason (no one is interested in you).

~~~
Udo

      Your "1" doesn't include the chance that not everything we care about
      is preserved with current techniques. Also people might make a mistake 
      in the freezing process. [...]
    

I'm sorry I probably didn't make myself clear enough there. This is _not_ my
_1 = failure to access preservation technology_ but actually my category _3 =
preservation/restauration failure_. I did include those scenarios.

    
    
      Your "3" doesn't include the chance that restoration is impossible
    

Yes, it does include that, more specifically: it takes into account that some
minds might not be sufficiently preserved for technical reasons. But if you
mean that restoration in general could turn out to be impossible, I'm going to
have to take a stand against that. I have a modest background in information
technology and biology, and from where I stand there is nothing in principle
that precludes restauration. The main question here becomes: how big is the
interval between cardiac arrest and cryo? From our current understanding I'd
say that we're probably good if this time is between 1 and 2 hours (depending
on the temperature of the environment and the manner of death).

    
    
      overly expensive,
    

That's right, because I think that's a ridiculous reason.

    
    
      or not done for some other reason (no one is interested in you).
    

This is what I mean by "persistence failure" (see there).

------
blrs
I think Hackers will have the last laugh after all. When hackers finally build
an AI, it will also be the first soul. An intelligent mind decoupled from a
body and thus capable of being immortal. The first step in this direction was
the stored program concept itself which was best articulated by Von Neumann
(<http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf>) and realized in
the EDVAC. This allowed programs to be decoupled from hardware. Dennis
Ritchie, whose loss we all mourn, made what I consider the second big step.
Decoupling large software systems from hardware, via a portable operating
system. It will take a while (10-20 years?), but maybe something like ROS
(<http://www.willowgarage.com/pages/software/ros-platform>) will someday
become a full mind that is still decoupled from any particular hardware...a
soul!!!

------
michaelchisari
I'm very interested in life extension/repair/rejuvenation (ala Aubrey De
Grey), but I really have no interest in cryogenics. This may be because I'm
only 32 years old, and in good health, but from everything I've read, the
former is much more realistic than the latter.

So I don't consider Ritchie's death without cryopreservation any more of a
tragedy than the death itself.

------
monkeypizza
Even if cyro doesn't preserve everything, it will probably be a better record
of the past than anything else that exists from our era.

As an analogy think about how we feel about people 2000 years ago - if we
could have just a few comprehensive samples of something in their world, we
would really like it. Even things like exhaustive lists of every word they
said for a week would be incredibly useful for linguists, lists of everything
they ate would be useful, etc.

We shouldn't rely on _their_ choices of what is worth preserving - we should
adopt a broad based approach and try to preserve the maximum amount of things,
and hope it will be useful later on.

I think today we have even used graffiti preserved on the walls of Pompei to
get an idea of what the ancient world was like - surely there would be
valuable information stored in even an imperfectly-frozen brain?

Who knows what kind of crazy theories they may have in the future, that they
just would need to have a few brains to test out with?

------
bitops
Sooner or later we all have to die. It's inevitable. But, if you feel like you
might have wasted your life if you were to die tomorrow, why not get up and do
something about it?

------
voidfiles
As the countless quotes show without an eventual demise Steve Jobs might not
have done what he did.

Why not redefine the question as will life extension actually help?

------
ryandvm
Wow. I'm surprised how many points this post has given the absurd premises
that cryopreservation is based upon.

There are far too many easily identifiable things that could go wrong in the
process for me to even consider dumping money into such hokum. These are the
same type of people that were insisting the world double up on alchemy
research two thousand years ago.

~~~
gwern
Maybe we should've. Chemistry would've been impossible to develop without
alchemy's findings, based as it is on the elements alchemists discovered and
the techniques & equipment they refined; and alchemists gave us gunpowder,
which seems like it might've had something to do with the Age of Exploration
and subsequent Industrialization.

------
asto
To do away with death is to do away with evolution. Not a very good idea. We
should work towards improving the quality of life rather than extend it.

Would have been happier if the article was "as more people fall to chronically
painful illnesses, isn't it time we act?"

~~~
gwern
> To do away with death is to do away with evolution. Not a very good idea.

It's a great idea. Evolution is about the dumbest possible optimization
process which still works. I don't see Google throwing its hands up and saying
'screw engineering Bigtable or MapReduce with our silly minds, we'll just
_evolve those fuckers_!'

Science: it works, bitches. (With apologies to <http://www.xkcd.com/54/>)

------
cies
i made this project for this purpose:

<http://edu.kde.org/kturtle>

solution: the next generation.

------
nknight
Maybe when there's real evidence that cryonics is actually useful?

Hackers of all people ought to know that no matter what your models say, it's
all bullshit until you test it. And as far as I know, there's not even a model
generally accepted by the scientific community that indicates any reasonable
probability of success anyway.

~~~
fl3tch
Models are tested by experiments. Freeze a dog for a few years and resuscitate
it, then we can talk seriously about the value of cryopreservation. Until
then, you're throwing your money away in a desperate grasp at immortality. And
that's money that could actually help real people now. At least that could be
your legacy. Don't be the next Newton trying to turn crap into gold.

~~~
lsparrish
Most of the money goes into an investment account, and eventually to
biotech/nanotech research to reanimate the patient. Most of the work in
reanimating the patient is repairing extreme brain damage (from cold and
ischemia).

Repairing brain damage is extremely valuable to people who suffer from it, and
to society. Sure there are more direct ways to fund brain damage research, but
you don't get the same motivation; this feels like a selfish benefit to the
person who spends on it so it is more likely to compete with luxuries instead
of charitable causes.

------
michaelochurch
What makes you think no one wants to die?

No one knows for sure if there's anything on the other side, but I definitely
don't want to stick around this world forever. Immortality would be a curse.

~~~
wavephorm
Long life != immortality.

Obviously nobody really wants to be immortal and one day outlast the solar-
system and eventually be left floating around in space for trillions of years.

~~~
burgerbrain
_"one day outlast the solar-system and eventually be left floating around in
space for trillions of years."_

Where can I sign up?

~~~
gwern
I'm afraid GEHIRN ended the Evangelion test pilot trials a few years ago;
sorry.

