> I wrote:
> > Reason overrides free choice. Most people are a bit like dumb kids
> > with a lot of maturing to do. Restricting their freedom in order
> > to keep them from harm is imo morally perfectly acceptable. They
> > will thank you later for it, and if not, they can still kill
> > themselves later...
>
> Oh, I dunno. If I was in the subordinate position in this
> scenario, I would be *much* more interested in killing my
> tormentor than in killing myself.
>
"Subordinate" is hardly the correct word here. I'm talking friends and
relatives,
frozen or otherwise preserved after their natural death without having
given
their consent. If the future turnes out the way I hope it will, these folks
will be
restored to life. Upon realizing that I (or other transhumanists) was right
all
along (no mystical afterlife, you *can* "repair" the dead, technology has
enabled mankind to explore the universe and so on) they will probably
accept the situation. I still assume that no-one *really* wants to die,
that if *real* "youth pills" or "immortality potions" were handed out on
the street (and it had somehow [hypothetically] been proven that they
work), the same people who "oppose" cryonics etc. would be fighting over
them.
Therefore, I strongly doubt it that anyone I want to save would hate, let
alone
kill me for it. Terms like "tormentor" may add some spice to your
comment, but in reality the frozen reluctant ones will almost certainly
wake as our equals, with the same benefits like enhanced minds etc.
Definitely _not_ as
"victims" or "slaves" or something like that.
> You're sounding awfully smug up there on top of your imaginary
> throne, Mr. Otter.
>
Ok, so modesty isn't my greatest virtue...in fact, if my ego (on a good
day) were
to take on shape and substance, and if it would take up position halfway
between the sun and the earth...there would be darkness.
But seriously, don't you think that we're the icing on the human cake :;))
> --
Hang loose