Is every life really worth preserving?

From consequentialist perspective, the value of not saving a life is the same as the value of killing someone. In which light, the title of your post becomes, "Is every person really worth not killing?" Try re-reading the argument with this framing in mind.

(Avoiding measures that save lives with certain probability is then equivalent to introducing the corresponding risk of death.)

This appears to be a different frame for the death penalty debate.

Far enough in the future, it might be possible to "cure" them. However, they will still possess toxic memories and thoughts that would greatly distress them now that they are normal. To truly repair them, they would likely need to have many or all of their memories erased. At that point, with an amnesic brain and a cloned body, are they even really the same person, and if not, what was the point of cryopreserving them?

Why not "cure" them by building a mind that can bare them without too much distress? A sufficiently different mind can I think bear any thoughts a human mind "diseased" or not can have. Do such minds necessarily or even probably hold no value to us?

At least 50% of US university students have had a homicidal fantasy this year. Guess how common rape fantasies are. To a more "sensitive" mind something like that could seem horrifying. But how ... can they think such things and still have sympathy and not go around stabbing each other all the time?

Forming a robust theory of mind and realizing that not everyone thinks or sees the world the same way you do is actually quite difficult. Consider the immense complexity of the world we live in and the staggering scope of thoughts that can possibly be thought as a result. If cryopreservation means first and foremost mind preservation, maybe there are some minds that just shouldn't be preserved. Maybe the future would be a better, happier place without certain thoughts, feelings and memories--and without the minds that harbor them.

Feelings, memories, thoughts, if you somehow carve them away from functioning running brain, are merely information. Are you speaking of not reviving certain minds with such ideas or of that information being permanently erased?

BTW Have you read "Beyond the reach of God" before?

Personally, I think the assumption of "better safe than sorry" is a good-enough justification for mass cryonics (or for cryonics generally), but I think that assumption, like any, should at least be questioned.

I agree.

Many people write these villains off as evil and give their condition not a second thought. But it is quite possible that they actually suffer from some sort of mental illness and are thus not fully responsible for their crimes.

What's the difference?

In fact, there is evidence that the brains of serial killers are measurably different from those of normal people.

They are measurably different. The simplest measure is the number of people murdered by them.

We could just keep them as-is and use different methods of keeping them from killing each other.

I don't see any benefit of using an old mind over making a new one, so I definitely don't think every life is really worth preserving.

I do not understand this obsession with preserving every living mind (it seems to me that EY and LW in general implicitly or explicitly subscribe to the popular notion that a body is a vessel for the mind).

Those who wish to be frozen and can afford it are free to take their chances, those who believe in eternal soul or reincarnation are free to take theirs, those who would rather die forever should not be judged, either.

It sure sucks if you want to get frozen but cannot afford it, and it is a reasonable goal to reduce cost/improve odds of revival, but it is but one of many useful goals to work on.

To truly save them, they would likely need to have many or all of their memories erased.

This is question-begging. Sure, if my experiences and memories are a net negative, such that I and my surroundings are improved by wiping all of that away and starting fresh, then there's no particular reason to preserve those experiences and memories. Of course.

OTOH, if they're a net positive, then there is.

I am hesitant, and I think many others may be hesitant to engage in a debate on eugenics, not because it might trigger strong feelings (I think we as a community are capable of setting those aside), but because of the way it might be perceived by casual visitors to the site.

It would be nice if we could get some sort of agreement to ignore political correctness/face the consequences of political incorrectness and engage in what I think would be a very healthy debate.

If erasing the memories were done by artificially stimulating the mechanism that causes normal forgetting, I think they'd be the same person. After all, I don't consider myself a new person whenever I forget something. But maybe there's something I'm missing. 

To deny any thought feeling or memory or the mind that harbored it... seems a bit extreme i don't know if theirs a term for it ? Maybe we should save our imperfections they in many ways are what make us human.

(I'm sorry if my entry's are not as polished as most I'm a little unrefined.)

Consider those who have demonstrated through their actions that they are best kept excluded from society at large. John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer would be prime examples. Many people write these villains off as evil and give their condition not a second thought. But it is quite possible that they actually suffer from some sort of mental illness and are thus not fully responsible for their crimes. In fact, there is evidence that the brains of serial killers are measurably different from those of normal people. Far enough in the future, it might be possible to "cure" them. However, they will still possess toxic memories and thoughts that would greatly distress them now that they are normal. To truly repair them, they would likely need to have many or all of their memories erased. At that point, with an amnesic brain and a cloned body, are they even really the same person, and if not, what was the point of cryopreserving them?

For a sufficiently advanced civilization all brains are measurably different from each other. I think you should reconsider or at the very least expand on by what you mean by "fully responsible". As it is used by Western legal systems and implicitly most people it is not a coherent concept. Neither is sick or healthy or even cure for that matter. To prime you on this and perhaps dissolve some confusion, I recommend reading this article.

Perhaps not being fully responsible means not being responsible for acting under a sufficiently false map or even a false map at all, because we can't infer revealed preferences from that or perhaps because of the golden rule. Perhaps not being fully responsible means someone who has values sufficiently different from most people to peacefully coexist, perhaps different values from yourself or someone to whom you outsource your moral autonomy. Perhaps not being fully responsible means a brain I can't yet change with technology so it will promote my values and I must thus waste by imprisonment or destruction.

As you can see I can't tell you neither can I tell what you meant here. :)

I ask a diferent question: in a time constrain scenario, what lives are worth dying? Some people are elevating the risk of human extintion – producting weapons of mass destruction -- , perhaps for this they deserve to die?

Is every what worth preserving?

Voted you down. This is deontologist thought in transhumanist wrapping paper.

Ignoring the debate concerning the merits of eternal paradise itself and the question of Heaven's existence, I would like to question the assumption that every soul is worth preserving for posterity.

Consider those who have demonstrated through their actions that they are best kept excluded from society at large. John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer would be prime examples. Many people write these villains off as evil and give their condition not a second thought. But it is quite possible that they actually suffer from some sort of Satanic corruption and are thus not fully responsible for their crimes. In fact, there is evidence that the souls of serial killers are measurably different from those of normal people. Far enough in the future, it might be possible to "cure" them. However, they will still possess toxic memories and thoughts that would greatly distress them now that they are normal. To truly save them, they would likely need to have many or all of their memories erased. At that point, with an amnesic brain and a cloned body, are they even really the same person, and if not, what was the point of saving them?

Forming a robust theory of mind and realizing that not everyone thinks or sees the world the same way you do is actually quite difficult. Consider the immense complexity of the world we live in and the staggering scope of thoughts that can possibly be thought as a result. If eternal salvation means first and foremost soul preservation, maybe there are some souls that just shouldn't be saved. Maybe Heaven would be a better, happier place without certain thoughts, feelings and memories--and without the minds that harbor them.