MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

08 July 2011

It's the Friday Night Question, chosen at random from The Book of Questions...[More:]

#98: You know you will die of an incurable disease within three months. Would you allow yourself to be frozen within the week if you knew it would give you a modest chance of being revived in 1,000 years and living a greatly extended life?
No. I'd still be dead and the revived me would not be me so why bother.
posted by arse_hat 08 July | 18:21
No, because imagine how terrifying someone from 1,000 years ago would find life if they woke up in it today - even the English they spoke would be unintelligible, our food would be indigestible to them, they'd probably die of terror the first time they saw a car or they would otherwise die within a very short space of time of something we've evolved antibodies to deal with. So I can't imagine giving up a few months of life for something so uncertain, frightening and potentially deadly.
posted by Senyar 08 July | 18:23
It would have everything to do with quality of life for me. I don't know how I could afford living a 1000 years in the future, but would I be in pain for another three months? Will I be healthy and functional and just drop dead? I'd do it to choose my death. Should I actually live again, it would just be a bonus. Cryogenics aren't cheap from what I know and they pull the plug when the money runs out.
posted by ethylene 08 July | 18:26
I'd rather have the ~3 months with my partner than live alone in the future.
posted by BoringPostcards 08 July | 18:35
Sure. Especially if the loved ones I left behind understood my decision. That's the main obstacle anyway, cryogenics aside.
posted by Hugh Janus 08 July | 18:41
No, even if it were a sure this rather than a "modest chance," being revived doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm connected to this life through people: it's my family and friends that make life precious to me, not the number of days that I manage to get through.
posted by Elsa 08 July | 18:48
Elsa has it .. I'd rather take the 3 months with my family than the "modest chance" at a thaw in 1000 years where nobody would know me. That's a really easy choice.
posted by Kangaroo 08 July | 18:54
Oops, of course I meant "sure thing."

But I can absolutely empathize with someone for whom this is an appealing choice. If one of my loved ones chose to do it, I'd understand and support them. I just wouldn't choose it myself.
posted by Elsa 08 July | 18:54
Every time I go into a surgery, I am choosing to freeze my life for a matter of hours to get a reasonable chance of living an extended life. I don't have enough personal ties to care if I wake up the next day or the next millennium.
posted by Ardiril 08 July | 19:00
Modest chance? No, I'd rather spend my time with the mister and the wee beasties. 100%? That would be a very tough decision.
posted by deborah 08 July | 19:28
Only if that 'world 1000 years in the future' was like the one Philip J. Fry was awakened into...
posted by oneswellfoop 08 July | 19:38
No.
posted by brujita 08 July | 19:55
Hell fucking no.
posted by serazin 08 July | 19:57
Not at all. Life alone is not worth living, and I would have no ties to that future world.
posted by mightshould 08 July | 20:08
I'd be curious to get a peek at the world 1000 from now, but no. Mostly for the reasons Senyar noted. I'm alienated enough in this century :P
posted by wens 08 July | 20:19
Oh hell no. I f I had three months to live I'd go on a NINETY DAY KILLING SPREE.
posted by BitterOldPunk 08 July | 20:56
No way. Maybe if it was a sure thing and I could take the cat with me :)
posted by grapesaresour 08 July | 21:17
No. I have extracted the promise from my wife and daughter (both of them hate scrabble) that, in the case I am diagnosed with a terminal disease, they will play all the scrabble with me that I want.

No way I would waste that.
posted by danf 08 July | 21:22
I would, if only for the chance when thawed, to go on a global rampage demanding everyone get off my lawn. Because I would be a thousand years older than any of them.

And yes, I'm totally curious what the world will look like in a thousand years. I would enjoy the challenge of adapting.
posted by Eideteker 09 July | 01:14
If it was a really good chance that it would work and the freezing process itself was not horrible, sure. Although this is mostly so I can see if we have a Star Trek TNG level of technology/offworld colonies, whatever. It would be difficult to adapt, I am sure. But the mere possibility of space travel would be worth it.
Then again, TBH I suspect the world will resemble Fallout 3 at that point more than it resembles Star Trek, but whatever.
Sure, if the chance is better than current cryonics which seems more like "infinitesimal" than "modest". If the future has the resources to defrost and cure you then they're probably rich and luxurious, or have something useful for you to do. I could even live with being a novelty on the talk show circuit, if my agent can cut a decent deal on the holo-feel rights.
posted by TheophileEscargot 09 July | 04:54
I'd give it a whirl. Saying goodbye to my honey and my mom would be hard, but that would be painful at one week or three months, and I, too, would love to see what the world is like in a thousand years. If it didn't work, I wouldn't know any better, so why not take a chance.
posted by Pips 09 July | 11:02
No way. I'd want the three months.
posted by LoriFLA 09 July | 15:39
Nope.
When it's done, it's done. Let the next ones have a shot.
posted by Thorzdad 09 July | 18:10
Nope, not with those odds. If it was a sure thing, I'd jump at it.
posted by dg 09 July | 22:29
Google+ Invites || Couch in Baltimore MD or vicinity?

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN