Hypothetical situations for anti-natalists

My recent science fiction reading has left me thinking about two questions; I'd be interested in hearing the perspectives of the anti-natalists on this board.

A way has been developed to scan people's brains and recreate the structure in electronic form. You can get your brain scanned every so often, and when you die you can continue living in electronic form with your last scan. Let's assume that the copy is perfect, by every measure we can devise to test it. Would you do it?

As an atheist I don't believe in souls. I think of life not only as a series of cellular processes, but also as consciousness. So if a computer could be devised which could replicate my consciousness, I would see it as living.

If it is living, it can still suffer and die. I'd be extremely tempted to have the copy made, because I don't want to die. But of course I wouldn't escape death just because there was an identical copy of me in existence. My current form would still die, with all the possible emotional and physical anguish that entails. Death cannot be escaped in this manner, even if a form of immortality could be achieved.

It also wouldn't be me who lived on. The scan and I would start diverging the moment it was created, because our experiences would no longer be identical. Biology limits us in some ways, and I'm sure it would be tempting for my electronic form to construct fantasies to engage in, which would feel as real as reality. It would probably aim for maximal happiness, and it would have different constraints than I do. Thus we would no longer be the same person: I would have created a new life. With life, comes death. I would have created a person who would ultimately cease to exist.

I don't think it would be ethical, but I recognize the temptation to persist in whatever way one can.

Further in the future, we are all electronic. Our ancestors scanned themselves long ago, and abandoned their physical forms. We are spread all over the galaxy, and every person has multiple backups. For all intents and purposes, we are immortal, or as close to it as is possible: life only ends when the universe ends, or when a person decides to shut off. New adults can be created by merging the minds of two (or more) people, and children can be created by a virtual mixing of the stored genetic profiles of people. The resulting profile is put in a limited environment designed to emulate the physical world, where it is raised by its parents until it is ready to be introduced to the full scope of our existence. Is it ethical to reproduce in this form?

This creature doesn't have to know death, and suffering can be controlled because every aspect of the environment is virtual.

Creating life in this form could be unethical. A twisted person could create her/his own environment and populate it with creatures of her/his own creation which somehow fall short of the definition of 'human' and are therefore not subject to the same freedoms as others, but which are nonetheless capable of the same depth of feeling as any other electronic person, and then torment them. Sociopaths could live happily in worlds of their own creation, but would the suffering of the creatures that populate our world be of concern to the rest of us? If not, why not? If yes, doesn't this suggest that the fate of these children who are raised should matter to us?

If death and suffering are eliminated at the cost of reality, are we still human? And even if we are not, is it wrong for humanity to leave a legacy of life that will always be happy, and will never die? Is it less virtuous than extinction to leave something which can enjoy the universe?

A way has been developed to scan people's brains and recreate the structure in electronic form. You can get your brain scanned every so often, and when you die you can continue living in electronic form with your last scan. Let's assume that the copy is perfect, by every measure we can devise to test it. Would you do it? I would possibly do it and/or condone it under conditions which include the following:

1)Like with holograms on Star Trek, there were safety protocols in place where the being could be shut down automatically should it malfunction and present a threat to any living thing or to property.

2)That it be used for informational, educational, and possibly entertainment purposes and no attempt made to integrate it into society to live among actual biological beings as if it were a living and currently existing person. An interactive hologram library of sorts where everyone had access to it could be quite educational and/or entertaining for many reasons for people of the future. For example, if that technology had been available in centuries past, I'd enjoy visiting with, asking questions of, and/or interacting with quite a few people including Van Gogh, Rachmaninoff, Poe, Jack the Ripper, da Vinci, Charlie Chaplin, Edison, Nobel, Hitler, Mary Shelley, Jesus, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, and primitive beings like the Neanderthal and many many others. On a smaller scale it would be very interesting to interact with our own ancestors we never had the opportunity to meet or to converse and consult with deceased friends and relatives.

3)That it not be allowed to be created into a physical form and remain a hologram-type or computer generated being only.

I also think it'd be interesting to have programs written for it with the ability to extrapolate and then project opinions on subjects not available in the being's time period based on it's thoughts and actions on other issues it held or did while it was alive in it's first life.


As an atheist I don't believe in souls. I think of life not only as a series of cellular processes, but also as consciousness. So if a computer could be devised which could replicate my consciousness, I would see it as living. If it is living, it can still suffer and die. I'd be extremely tempted to have the copy made, because I don't want to die. But of course I wouldn't escape death just because there was an identical copy of me in existence. My current form would still die, with all the possible emotional and physical anguish that entails. Death cannot be escaped in this manner, even if a form of immortality could be achieved. I don't think it should be able to suffer or "die" but instead should be limited to the types of interactions I mentioned above. In other words, more like an interactive cyber-being which doesn't "live" among us like regular people to accumulate additional life experiences after the death of the original being. However, it'd be interesting to program it to have opinions on hypothetical life experiences it has never actually experienced. For instance, I'd like to be able to ask my deceased grandfather's opinion on current events based on a program's projected answers he might have actually expressed or had should he have lived longer or was still alive based on his prior life experiences, actions, and opinions.

It'd also be interesting to take someone like Hitler and program into his cyber being the effects of his actions over the past 60+ years and see what he has to say about what he did based on the actual outcome of events and his programmed 20-20 hindsight. Jesus would be another interesting one to interview had that technology been available in his time and he could be programmed with the knowledge of the last 2000+ years. "So, Jesus, knowing what you now know, what, if anything, would you have done or said differently?....", for example, OR "What was literally meant by........"(fill in the blank)

It also wouldn't be me who lived on. The scan and I would start diverging the moment it was created, because our experiences would no longer be identical. Biology limits us in some ways, and I'm sure it would be tempting for my electronic form to construct fantasies to engage in, which would feel as real as reality. It would probably aim for maximal happiness, and it would have different constraints than I do. Thus we would no longer be the same person: I would have created a new life. With life, comes death. I would have created a person who would ultimately cease to exist. I don't agree your copy should be or considered to be a "person". It is what it is, which is a computer generated copy incapable of actually "living" on as the original for a myriad of reasons, many of which you've already mentioned. Therefore, it would be impossible to give us immortality at all or in any form by it's creation or existence in any form. IF it were to be made into a physical and identical in every way artificial intelligence like a human robot, reminding me of clones like the book-movie, "The Sixth Day", like a living clone or biological twin having actually been born or grown in a lab to maturity, it absolutely would be unique and different from the original the moment it had a single experience or thought of it's own.

Also, depending on the "copy", life wouldn't necessarily mean death, especially if the being wasn't made totally(or at all) from biological material. There might come a point in it's awareness and/or life though it would wish to "die", much like some people under certain circumstances.

I don't think it would be ethical, but I recognize the temptation to persist in whatever way one can. I have no desire to continue to exist in a biological form for eternity or even for hundreds of years. Although when I was very young and had few life experiences I thought that'd be great, now I possess life experiences and the maturity to realize that being immortal, in my current or similar cloned form, would come with it's own sets of unsavory problems possibly worse than what I already know. It would especially be problematic if a great number of people had that option for obvious reasons. Even if somehow our new physical bodies didn't require food, water, medical care, or maintenance of any type, which I doubt is possible, our continued existence by just "being" would take up space which eventually would become problematic, to say the least. Even assuming we could colonize other planets we are overlooking the possibility there are already beings inhabiting those of whom we are currently unaware.

Then there's the issue of potential conflicts among and between the people currently living their first lives, potential desires for procreation between and of the simulated beings, and of their offspring. While there are countless variables and infinite possibilities we likely can't even begin to imagine, my overwhelming feeling on the matter is it's a BAD idea for all concerned, but mostly it's likely going to be unfair for the first life beings in many ways.

Further in the future, we are all electronic. Our ancestors scanned themselves long ago, and abandoned their physical forms. We are spread all over the galaxy, and every person has multiple backups. For all intents and purposes, we are immortal, or as close to it as is possible: life only ends when the universe ends, or when a person decides to shut off. New adults can be created by merging the minds of two (or more) people, and children can be created by a virtual mixing of the stored genetic profiles of people. The resulting profile is put in a limited environment designed to emulate the physical world, where it is raised by its parents until it is ready to be introduced to the full scope of our existence. Is it ethical to reproduce in this form? Since I don't think it's ethical people are reproducing like rats now, I don't think it's ethical to create ANY more beings, including by IVF, surrogacy, or electronic recreations IF they take up physical space and/or have physical needs to be met by society. However, if you are proposing electronic beings replace biological ones, I'd have to wonder how that would take place. There absolutely would be people who didn't want to be assimilated in electronic form, so it wouldn't be ethical to force any one person to do so. If the physical world is emulated in the future, I have to wonder if the actual world still exists too with all it's people. If so, and they can co-exist harmoniously, I don't see an ethical problem.

However, I don't think it's possible for all the beings of the world(s) to ever live among one another in complete harmony unless it's forced by powers or technology greater than we currently are aware exist, assuming they do, will, or will be allowed to exist by enough willing people. Even then, there will undoubtedly be living carbon based beings who are against it, I think, so what happens to them?


This creature doesn't have to know death, and suffering can be controlled because every aspect of the environment is virtual. Creating life in this form could be unethical. A twisted person could create her/his own environment and populate it with creatures of her/his own creation which somehow fall short of the definition of 'human' and are therefore not subject to the same freedoms as others, but which are nonetheless capable of the same depth of feeling as any other electronic person, and then torment them. Sociopaths could live happily in worlds of their own creation, but would the suffering of the creatures that populate our world be of concern to the rest of us? If not, why not? If yes, doesn't this suggest that the fate of these children who are raised should matter to us? These reasons right here are the primary reason I think it's a bad idea to create clones of deceased people in any physical form or allow these creatures to interact with a society of first life living beings. It's also why I think cryogenics is wrong on many levels and I have mixed emotions about "bringing people back" after they are clinically dead. You can't imagine the emotional dilemma suffered by many of those who have been resuscitated after they have died unless you've experienced it. Some, myself included, often feel like we are living on "borrowed time" or taking up space and time that doesn't belong to us. Possibly too, we are taking up space and time which would have rightfully belonged to someone else had we gone on and stayed dead like it seemed we were supposed to do and WOULD have done under only slightly different circumstances. :headbrick

If death and suffering are eliminated at the cost of reality, are we still human? If those two are eliminated along with reality, we probably would be something other than human, although I don't know what it would be. And even if we are not, is it wrong for humanity to leave a legacy of life that will always be happy, and will never die? Is it less virtuous than extinction to leave something which can enjoy the universe? If the humans are completely gone, as a species, and replaced with something else then humans ARE extinct. The only way suffering or emotional pain can be completely eliminated in our world is by artificial means, I believe. We have the ability now to always be "happy", if you will, by taking or using certain drugs or by surgical means similar to a lobotomy or by artificially enhancing or manipulating Dopamine, Serotonin, or certain hormones, but most of us opt out of continual artificial means of happiness simply because it isn't real. Also, most mentally retarded people are "happy", seemingly oblivious to most of life's worries, so would a perpetual state of happiness not eventually lower all of our collective IQ's and capabilities? Is stupidity a viable trade off for eternal happiness? If it was possible to be nothing but happy all the time, would we choose it after having known a variety of emotions? If there was nothing in life but good times, happiness, and complete joy, would that not diminish "happiness" as we know it and therefore cause the very emotion so many of us seek to become neutral and not so sought after?

Like a decadent, delicious, and rich all chocolate favorite dessert of mine I indulge in infrequently, would it be as sweet and something I enjoyed in the same way if I ate it every day and/or whenever I wanted? Would we enjoy our favorite past times, hobbies, or avocations in the same way if we didn't finish our "chores" first? No, I am afraid the definition of "happy" would change immensely if that's the only emotion we ever felt. It might be called "happy", but it wouldn't be the same happiness we experience now. To know and appreciate happiness(as we know it) we must also be susceptible to and have experienced sadness. If we've never lost anyone we love to death or be aware that we could then I don't think we could appreciate life and the people we care about in the same way either. If we never die then we won't ever be in a position to "leave" anything behind anyway, whatever it might be including a legacy.

It's all fun to think about and the speculation infinite, but I don't want or desire immortality and if it was forced upon me I am certain I wouldn't be happy, unless of course that was forced upon me too, which, in and of itself, would make me sad. I guess it's possible to create a paradox with many of the above thought and ideas, much like with time travel theories which is another topic I enjoy. As far as eliminating reality, existing in an artificially created world, and still remaining human, I believe that's possible. However, we would no longer be human as we currently define or comprehend it.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

Ehhh...I don't know. I have some pretty twisted rhetoric floating in my brain. I'd hate to see my darkest dreams turn into reality...even though deep down I want them to be true.

The pro-natalists would definitely have other parts recreated.

To that I say, "Don't copy that floppy."

Try the fish.

I would not. While the creation would diverge immediatly it would still have my memories and experiences prior.

Imagine creating a being that is one shrink visit from a PTSD diagnosis. Beyond unethical. Amusing in a Monty Python / Rocky Horror sort of way but unethical.

_______________________________________________
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”

Just some stray thoughts ~

I suppose this would mean that one would be able to transfer their 'consciousness'.

Instead of a 'copy' - how about they put 'you' into another container?

Would a 'copy' itself have some sort of 'consciousness'? And by this I mean 'self aware'. Some may label this idea a 'soul'. I will bypass that also as I am not religious. What I talking about here is that you are 'aware', OK?

Consider this - cars have so much electronic equipment now, I believe I read the average one has 100 M lines of code. Not sure of the exact figure. Yes it can 'think', correct it's own issues - but has it achieved sentience? Is it 'aware' of what it is? Most would say 'no'.

I suppose it could be argued that human beings may not even be all that aware, either. You know it's you though, anyway.

Scanning my brain and getting it functioning might only produce something that 'operates' and is not aware. I assume your 'consciousness' would be shoved into it too then.

If more copies were made, and the consciousness spread among them - would this be something like 'collective conscious' then? As some people believe animals and insects to have.

Do you need to be put into a thing?

One of the arguments I have against religion is what I perceive to be design flaws. Why not just make us all ghosts? Wouldn't that be easier?

That could work here, too - just convert you into a ghost.

However, it could be argued that this too involves 'things' - such as Plasma fields, etc. Plasma Physics is a quite interesting subject BTW, I was thinking of going into this, it's godawfully complex stuff though.

Interesting book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bang-Never-Happened/dp/067974049X

Could human consciousness exist as some kind of electrical field -only- ? Is that what it is now?

I have no fear of death. If I fear anything at all it would be the idea of reincarnation and that "I" would be sent back here. Or, it would be my consciousness existing in some other form. It wouldn't be 'me' per se, it would 'consciousness' brought back to some physical existence.

One turn (that I know of) in one of these meat bags is enough!

They're made out of meat!