which basically use authority of science to claim immortality is a fantasy and shift the burden of proof on immortalists. I understand that younger skeptics like Elizer Yudkowsky and Julia Galef aren't deathists who believe that immortality is a myth created by religion, and is scientifically impossible, as because they grew up in secular environment, they are less traumatized by fundamentalist or conservative religion and therefore don't use authority of science to claim radical life extension, immortality are fantasy and that you cannot outsmart evolution or the nature. Also, they went to college at different times, therefore Hayflick's conclusion about aging and it's reversibility isn't the only one they are taught, as opinions of biogerontologists becomes more diverse. Most younger deathist skeptics aren't scientists, but comedians like Adam Connover, who is just a clown. As a result, the CSICOP is the organization consisting almost exclusively of older, white males, who won't likely live to radical life extension and will be asleep till technological resurrection, and the organization will be taken over by clowns if they don't change the broader skeptic movement doesn't change their view on immortology and rejuvenology and surviving in situation through medical intervention and technology where evoulution didn't give us ability to. While typical audience of hardline deathist materialists are teenagers, they aren't young scientists and science majors, and the result might be not us winning, but religious fundamentalists, or New Age winning the broader public, if we don't convince the public. The deathists are shifting the burden of proof on us that cheating or indefinitely preventing death and reversing aging and degenerative disease of fundamental damage to our health is possible, and while we have better arguments, both logical and technological, they have one strength, they have the position considered default within secular society. Since we cannot infringe the freedom of speech, in order to see change in the academic discourse, we need to create public demand for it. Logic and reason don't work quite well, so I suggest appeal to peoples fear of death, emphasizing it, and to inability to accept death of close to them will be great strategy to get people to want to listen to us. It worked for religious fundamentalists.
I am NOT talking of rejuvenation, cryonics, or biological immortality for people alive now. I am talking of a much more radical concept. Technological resurrection would mean, for us, bringing back to life people who died hundreds of years ago. We are not able to do that, and we won’t be able to do that for quite some time. But our descendants will be able to use advanced science and ultra technology to bring us back to life. Us, those who died hundreds of years ago, or thousands, and everyone who ever lived. THIS is technological resurrection.
However, to address your point: I don’t pay too much attention (actually, I pay no attention) to the skeptics of rejuvenation medicine and indefinite life extension (aka immortality), because I assume that when these things will be operationally and commercially available, people will flock to adopt them en masse regardless of what the skeptics say. So what we need to do is simple: we need to create options that work, and then the skeptics will shut up.
My concern is not shutting up skeptics, but attracting supporters as, the more support means more investment, means more research, means better chances for human progress as well as shorter time interval (though not in the next coming years, obviously we are infinistemately unlikely to resurrect anyone close to that regardless of funding and research)
I think the best way to attract supporters is to ignore the skeptics and focus on producing good incremental research results, which will speak for themselves.
true. After all, who has the burden of proof is upon the public and the investors, as well as on scientific community, not upon the either side. We can just work on meeting the burden set on us by the audience. As they are the jury not us or our opponents.
Exactly. Therefore, debating the skeptics is a waste of valuable time that could be used much more productively to do all the things that the skeptics claim can't be done. Let the skeptics say whatever they want, and let's work to prove them wrong with facts. It will be a lot of work because, let's admit this, we don't really have much to show at this moment.
The thing is that many in the skeptic community write article like this: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cold-reality-versus-the-wishful-thinking-of-cryonics/,
which basically use authority of science to claim immortality is a fantasy and shift the burden of proof on immortalists. I understand that younger skeptics like Elizer Yudkowsky and Julia Galef aren't deathists who believe that immortality is a myth created by religion, and is scientifically impossible, as because they grew up in secular environment, they are less traumatized by fundamentalist or conservative religion and therefore don't use authority of science to claim radical life extension, immortality are fantasy and that you cannot outsmart evolution or the nature. Also, they went to college at different times, therefore Hayflick's conclusion about aging and it's reversibility isn't the only one they are taught, as opinions of biogerontologists becomes more diverse. Most younger deathist skeptics aren't scientists, but comedians like Adam Connover, who is just a clown. As a result, the CSICOP is the organization consisting almost exclusively of older, white males, who won't likely live to radical life extension and will be asleep till technological resurrection, and the organization will be taken over by clowns if they don't change the broader skeptic movement doesn't change their view on immortology and rejuvenology and surviving in situation through medical intervention and technology where evoulution didn't give us ability to. While typical audience of hardline deathist materialists are teenagers, they aren't young scientists and science majors, and the result might be not us winning, but religious fundamentalists, or New Age winning the broader public, if we don't convince the public. The deathists are shifting the burden of proof on us that cheating or indefinitely preventing death and reversing aging and degenerative disease of fundamental damage to our health is possible, and while we have better arguments, both logical and technological, they have one strength, they have the position considered default within secular society. Since we cannot infringe the freedom of speech, in order to see change in the academic discourse, we need to create public demand for it. Logic and reason don't work quite well, so I suggest appeal to peoples fear of death, emphasizing it, and to inability to accept death of close to them will be great strategy to get people to want to listen to us. It worked for religious fundamentalists.
I am NOT talking of rejuvenation, cryonics, or biological immortality for people alive now. I am talking of a much more radical concept. Technological resurrection would mean, for us, bringing back to life people who died hundreds of years ago. We are not able to do that, and we won’t be able to do that for quite some time. But our descendants will be able to use advanced science and ultra technology to bring us back to life. Us, those who died hundreds of years ago, or thousands, and everyone who ever lived. THIS is technological resurrection.
However, to address your point: I don’t pay too much attention (actually, I pay no attention) to the skeptics of rejuvenation medicine and indefinite life extension (aka immortality), because I assume that when these things will be operationally and commercially available, people will flock to adopt them en masse regardless of what the skeptics say. So what we need to do is simple: we need to create options that work, and then the skeptics will shut up.
My concern is not shutting up skeptics, but attracting supporters as, the more support means more investment, means more research, means better chances for human progress as well as shorter time interval (though not in the next coming years, obviously we are infinistemately unlikely to resurrect anyone close to that regardless of funding and research)
I think the best way to attract supporters is to ignore the skeptics and focus on producing good incremental research results, which will speak for themselves.
true. After all, who has the burden of proof is upon the public and the investors, as well as on scientific community, not upon the either side. We can just work on meeting the burden set on us by the audience. As they are the jury not us or our opponents.
Exactly. Therefore, debating the skeptics is a waste of valuable time that could be used much more productively to do all the things that the skeptics claim can't be done. Let the skeptics say whatever they want, and let's work to prove them wrong with facts. It will be a lot of work because, let's admit this, we don't really have much to show at this moment.