News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by xyzzyz on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:21PM (#11591986)
I feel like when we're able to put frozen brains in fresh bodies, refugees coming back from a different era will be lesser concern than the whole technological immortality thing. How do we ensure everyone has access to immortality (because this obviously needs to be a human right)? How then do we deal with population growth when people don't die of old age?
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by bryanlarsen on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:32PM (#11592059)
1) countries in developed countries quite regularly spend $100K-$1M to treat illnesses in poor people. I think a larger concern would be that they would choose to spend $50K to freeze a severely ill poor person than $1M to treat that same person.

2) as long as immortals don't have more children than mortals, then immortality has a surprisingly small effect on population growth.

The effects I'd be worried about would be the effects of having the majority of the world's wealth and power being held in the hands of immortals and cryogenic trusts.

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by nine_k on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:43PM (#11592120)
Ever read 'Altered Carbon' by Richard Morgan? This SF novel (quite a page-turner, btw) is set exactly in the world like that: changing bodies extends life, and the powerful understandably have more access to that, accumulating wealth.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by siquick on Thursday April 28, 2016 @07:06PM (#11592532)
Soon to be released as a series on Netflix

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/netflix-altered-carbon-serie...

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by Aelinsaar on Thursday April 28, 2016 @06:57PM (#11592489)
Absolutely fascinating way of looking at things, the concept of "Resleeving".
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by wiredfool on Friday April 29, 2016 @05:34AM (#11594612)
That's part of the plot of Cyroburn, by Lois McMaster Bujold. (Come to think of it, Neuromancer as well)
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by oppositelock on Thursday April 28, 2016 @06:04PM (#11592248)
> How then do we deal with population growth when people don't die of old age?

That's a great future problem to have, and it's the same problem that people brought up at the dawn of the age of antibiotics. Our lives have gotten better for it.

Who knows, maybe by the time immortality is possible, Earth won't be our only home, so population will be less of a problem.

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by stcredzero on Thursday April 28, 2016 @06:12PM (#11592286)
That's a great future problem to have

It always looks like that from the "before" side of things.

Our lives have gotten better for it.

That is the historical trend. But it's only a trend, so beware of inductive reasoning. It's not firmly anchored in any kind of mechanism or theory. There are reasons to believe that immortality overlaid on a capitalist free-market system might be horribly dystopian.

More likely, horribly dystopian and utopian all at once. In fact, I'd say the Bay Area is already horribly dystopian and utopian all at once.

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by FeepingCreature on Friday April 29, 2016 @06:39AM (#11594815)
I for one am thankful that our present-day problems include "how do we keep our populations at a sustainable level" and not "how do we deal with all the corpses from all the pestilence we're having".
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by stcredzero on Friday April 29, 2016 @02:59PM (#11597951)
"how do we deal with all the corpses from all the pestilence we're having".

There is still no guarantee we won't end up in that situation again.

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by reasonattlm on Thursday April 28, 2016 @06:04PM (#11592249)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192186/

"A common objection against starting a large-scale biomedical war on aging is the fear of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation). This fear is only exacerbated by the fact that no detailed demographic projections for radical life extension scenario have been conducted so far. This study explores different demographic scenarios and population projections, in order to clarify what could be the demographic consequences of a successful biomedical war on aging. A general conclusion of this study is that population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension. For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only (from 9.1 to 11.0 million). Moreover, if some members of society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.), then the total population size may even decrease over time. Thus, even in the case of the most radical life extension scenario, population growth could be relatively slow and may not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Therefore, the real concerns should be placed not on the threat of catastrophic population consequences (overpopulation), but rather on such potential obstacles to a success of biomedical war on aging, as scientific, organizational, and financial limitations."

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by xyzzyz on Thursday April 28, 2016 @06:28PM (#11592355)
Even for very long 100-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 60), the total population increases by 22% only.

Only 22% per 100 years? That's, like, 7 times over 1000 years, and 50 times over 2000 years. Two millenia is really not that long period when we're talking about immortality.

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by danieltillett on Thursday April 28, 2016 @06:44PM (#11592421)
No 22% over where it would be without ageing.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by zyxley on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:34PM (#11592076)
> How then do we deal with population growth when people don't die of old age?

That's not nearly as much of a problem as people think it would be.

About 60 million people die per year, and about two-thirds of that comes from age-related causes.

Something like 75 million babies are born each year, and that number is gradually but constantly shrinking as standards of living rise and people have fewer children.

The most likely result in a world of reliable anti-aging treatments would be a gradual slowing of new births to a trickle long before the reduced death rate ever became a real logistical problem.

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by xyzzyz on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:56PM (#11592203)
I don't see it the same way. Being immortal and fertile all the time could completely change the baby-making dynamics. What if people have fewer children because they can focus on their career earlier in their lives? Were they immortal, they could start making children while they're 100 years old and settled.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by danieltillett on Thursday April 28, 2016 @06:48PM (#11592440)
I suspect that we would see a decline in the number of children born rather than an increase. If you could put off indefinitely having children many would do so until they died of some non-ageing related cause.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by sooheon on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:22AM (#11595504)
I can also conjecture about the plausible couple who, having had their beloved son and daughter leave the nest, and with visits and calls growing less frequent, decide to go for round two.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by x3n0ph3n3 on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:34PM (#11592074)
Easy: you either get immortality or you get to have children, but not both.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by tempestn on Friday April 29, 2016 @06:36AM (#11594803)
Even if extreme measures did become necessary, they wouldn't have to be that extreme. For example, if everyone were limited to a maximum of one child, even if no one ever died from any cause, the population would still be capped at double the starting level.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by prodigal_erik on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:10PM (#11599806)
Do you mean every couple is limited to one child? Because if every person could have one, every couple could have two and they all live forever, that grows without limit. But if everyone gets half a child, that's basically Niven's birthright system.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by tempestn on Friday April 29, 2016 @10:54PM (#11600120)
If a couple has two children, each person in that couple has two children as well, not one. IE, if you ask a father of two how many children he has, the answer is "two", not "one; the other one is my wife's".

So saying each person gets one child is basically equivalent to saying each couple gets one child, except there's no need to include the concept of a "couple" in the equation.

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by branchan on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:27PM (#11592027)
How would immortality be a human right when most people around the world don't even have access to basic health services??
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by iliis on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:34PM (#11592075)
Because having a right to something and actually getting said thing are sadly two quite different things.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by x3n0ph3n3 on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:35PM (#11592083)
He doesn't understand the difference between a "right" and something that would be really nice if everyone had.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by eli_gottlieb on Saturday April 30, 2016 @02:44PM (#11602963)
Most ethical theories of "rights" are sufficiently incoherent that there's very little difference.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by sliverstorm on Thursday April 28, 2016 @07:04PM (#11592518)
Right; this is more like when the UN declared internet access a basic human right.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by cerebrum on Thursday April 28, 2016 @05:30PM (#11592047)
Digitalize humans and let them live in simulated worlds.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by CM30 on Friday April 29, 2016 @02:23PM (#11597677)
So kind of like Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead from series 4 of Doctor Who? Or Dark Water/Death in Heaven from series 8?

But the idea is definitely an interesting one. More so if humanity decides to avoid the science fiction cliche of the simulated worlds all being like modern day Earth and actually has them based on any wacky theme you can imagine. You could let people live in a simulated version of the time period they were originally frozen in. Or an historical period that'd just be interesting to experience. Or even a fictional world with fantasy elements, cause there's probably a certain amount of people that would love to live their main existence in the likes of World of Warcraft.

Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by lwhalen on Thursday April 28, 2016 @06:04PM (#11592255)
Did that. Look at the mess you (we) have made already.
Re:If cryonics suddenly worked, we'd need to face the fallout by foxyv on Thursday April 28, 2016 @08:23PM (#11592933)
A favorite author of mine is Wil McCarthy. He pretty much wrote an entire series on this subject. =D