Abstract
AbstractI defend the claim that life-suspending technologies can constitute a catastrophic and existential security factor for risks structurally similar to those related to climate change. The gist of the argument is that, under certain conditions, life-suspending technologies such as cryonics can provide self-interested actors with incentives to efficiently tackle such risks—in particular, they provide reasons to overcome certain manifestations of generational egoism, a risk factor of several catastrophic and existential risks. Provided we have reasons to decrease catastrophic and existential risks such as climate change, we also have a (defeasible) reason for investing in developing and making life-suspending technologies (more) widespread.
Funder
University Grants Commission
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference63 articles.
1. Afanasiev, V. (2022). Russia’s Gazprom cheers Arctic double drilling success. Upstream Online. Retrieved at https://www.upstreamonline.com/exploration/russia-s-gazprom-cheers-arctic-double-drilling-success/2-1-1376446
2. Arrhenius, G. (1999). Mutual advantage contractarianism and future generations. Theoria, 65(1), 25–35.
3. Avin, S., Wintle, B. C., Weitzdörfer, J., Éigeartaigh, S. Ó., Sutherland, W. J., & Rees, M. J. (2018). Classifying global catastrophic risks. Futures, 102, 20–26.
4. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books.
5. Bostrom, N. (2003). Astronomical waste. Utilitas, 15(3), 308–314.