Jason Stoddard recently told me about his "4 Arguments for Immortality" in response to a piece by Annalee Newitz on io9: "4 Arguments Against Immortality." I found Annalee’s argument interesting and Jason’s argument lucid. I thought I’d share them both.
4 Arguments Against Immortality by Annalee Newitz
"Our augmented bodies and minds will be hackable. As computer security nerds already know, every new release means a new vulnerability. Your awesome brain-computer interface may give you unlimited memory but it also means that an evil hacker can take over your consciousness by exploiting a buffer overflow in your brain. Your bionic arm is awesome, but only if you are able to get updates for it from a trusted source. And your cool new exoskeleton? Let’s just hope somebody patched that problem that lets kids in Russia take it over remotely and make you hump trucks forever. Or how about a Dollhouse scenario, where everybody in the world gets a phone call that reformats their brains and turns them into supersoldiers bent on destroying each other. Augmentation creates its own kinds of disabilities."
4 Arguments For Immortality by Jason Stoddard
"Health care problems, solved. As a society, we can’t stop talking about healthcare, the costs thereof (trillions of dollars in the US alone), and all the behavioral and social implications. Personally, we mourn loved ones who have passed away, or, worse, been debilitated by terrible diseases like stroke or dementia. Every one of us watches as we, and our friends, become less physically capable with every passing year. How can anyone argue that eliminating all of this wouldn’t be a good thing?"