How will you ensure that enough poor people are preserved that there doesn’t end up being a movement to destroy the preserved people? I expect this to require there to be many more people preserved who can’t afford it than people who can. If you skip this political cost calculation I expect you’ll end up losing the entire facility eventually due to reactive anger.
Our end goal is to make this become part of Medicare and have it be the default option for end of life care. In other countries, we hope it will become part of their standard healthcare offerings as appropriate. I hope the discussion about how to make preservation a reality for everyone (including many animals!) happens soon, and I think it will as more progress in uploading makes it clear that preservation is likely to work.
But I also want to really engage with your thoughts on this, so I’d love for you to respond to the following, which I think is a crux for me:
Suppose the worked the way you’re modeling it, with a high likelihood of my preservation facilities being destroyed because of reactive anger triggered by a top-heavy income ratio of preserved people. If that was true, I’d expect a lot of stories, today, about people storming and destroying various gated communities, graveyards with predominantly rich people buried in them, corporate headquarters, private hospitals, rich people’s yachts, etc. I don’t really see any stories about that happening. So I predict it wouldn’t be likely to happen for Nectome long-term care facilities, since there’s more obvious targets that would have been attacked first and haven’t.
I’m assuming people would be reacting to a belief that the tech mostly works, even if they disclaim that belief. The current equivalent is urinating on graves, which involves a revealed belief that the dead are actually dead.
I’m hopeful your plan for broad accessibility works out! I’m skeptical it will be possible in many countries due to the current structure of the network of “power” (agreements, enforceability, threats, laws, money, etc) of groups like insurers and militaries and etc folks who profit from death.
Generally I’m not optimistic that rule of law will be back any time soon or that people with lots of power are sufficiently reflective to notice and fix if they’re avoidant of working through how to turn their professed care for everyone into action on it; in some cases I think this may be because they are lying to others but not to themselves. Which I expect to turn into a general malaise of difficulty achieving your goals here.
How will you ensure that enough poor people are preserved that there doesn’t end up being a movement to destroy the preserved people? I expect this to require there to be many more people preserved who can’t afford it than people who can. If you skip this political cost calculation I expect you’ll end up losing the entire facility eventually due to reactive anger.
Our end goal is to make this become part of Medicare and have it be the default option for end of life care. In other countries, we hope it will become part of their standard healthcare offerings as appropriate. I hope the discussion about how to make preservation a reality for everyone (including many animals!) happens soon, and I think it will as more progress in uploading makes it clear that preservation is likely to work.
But I also want to really engage with your thoughts on this, so I’d love for you to respond to the following, which I think is a crux for me:
Suppose the worked the way you’re modeling it, with a high likelihood of my preservation facilities being destroyed because of reactive anger triggered by a top-heavy income ratio of preserved people. If that was true, I’d expect a lot of stories, today, about people storming and destroying various gated communities, graveyards with predominantly rich people buried in them, corporate headquarters, private hospitals, rich people’s yachts, etc. I don’t really see any stories about that happening. So I predict it wouldn’t be likely to happen for Nectome long-term care facilities, since there’s more obvious targets that would have been attacked first and haven’t.
I’m assuming people would be reacting to a belief that the tech mostly works, even if they disclaim that belief. The current equivalent is urinating on graves, which involves a revealed belief that the dead are actually dead.
I’m hopeful your plan for broad accessibility works out! I’m skeptical it will be possible in many countries due to the current structure of the network of “power” (agreements, enforceability, threats, laws, money, etc) of groups like insurers and militaries and etc folks who profit from death.
Generally I’m not optimistic that rule of law will be back any time soon or that people with lots of power are sufficiently reflective to notice and fix if they’re avoidant of working through how to turn their professed care for everyone into action on it; in some cases I think this may be because they are lying to others but not to themselves. Which I expect to turn into a general malaise of difficulty achieving your goals here.