From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Wed Jun 02 1999 - 12:12:56 MDT
QueeneMUSE@aol.com writes:
> >immortality. If we acheive it, will we loose the ability to defend ourselves
> with deadly force as a result?
>
> In a possible future where we have the means to put an end to death, future
> posthumans would be unlikely to call this an "ability' - but some sort of
> neanderthal recession into pre-posthuman primate memes.
It depends on the form of immortality - just absence of aging and most
diseases don't protect us from falling pianos, and the ability to take
backup copies will likely change the relative need for protection with
deadly force.
> OK, THOUGHTS: if the advances in medicine and extropy have given us
> the ability to reanimate and/or rejuvenate living tissue, putting
> people to death would hardly be a solution to any encroachment upon
> personal property or bodily harm.
It might depend on society's outlook; death penalties and permanent
murder may become much stronger negative things, while a bit of
maiming is seen as merely character building ("I'm trying to reach the
coast with a broken leg and punctured lung, for the authentic feeling
of recreating the lost Stepleton expedition"). For example, in
Varely's _Steel Beach_ bloodsports are fairly trivial entertainment
most of the time, since the participants rarely die (except when they
are adding death as an extra spice).
> Thought: perhaps bodily harm (if one can repair through "body
> work") will be seen as *less* of a crime, or considered more of a litiganous
> (SP?) one, rather than a violent one.
Maybe vandalism? "He broke my designer body, I had to use a Hertz
rental the whole week!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:56 MST