I don’t understand your logic. Genetic modification to allow a person to survive freezing and thawing would be great … but what has that to do with current cryonics patients?
It sounds rather like claiming that “flight will be achieved by genetically modifying persons to fly, so there will be little incentive to work on the much-more-difficult problem of flying an unmodified person”. Or, to take a metaphor that suggests work already happening, “sight will be achieved by genetically modifying persons to see, so there will be little incentive to work on the much-more-difficult problem of sight-enabling an unmodified person”.
It sounds rather like claiming that “flight will be achieved by genetically modifying persons to fly, so there will be little incentive to work on the much-more-difficult problem of flying an unmodified person”.
Yes. And that’s what I would say, if we didn’t have airplanes, and I thought that modifying people to fly would be easier than building airplanes, regardless of the performance desired. None of those things are true.
I don’t understand your logic. Genetic modification to allow a person to survive freezing and thawing would be great … but what has that to do with current cryonics patients?
It sounds rather like claiming that “flight will be achieved by genetically modifying persons to fly, so there will be little incentive to work on the much-more-difficult problem of flying an unmodified person”. Or, to take a metaphor that suggests work already happening, “sight will be achieved by genetically modifying persons to see, so there will be little incentive to work on the much-more-difficult problem of sight-enabling an unmodified person”.
Yes. And that’s what I would say, if we didn’t have airplanes, and I thought that modifying people to fly would be easier than building airplanes, regardless of the performance desired. None of those things are true.
You’re right—bad metaphor. What about the vision one?