Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

This is sad news, and there is really nothing to add to his own words.

I just want to highlight two things, firstly his support for the NHS, which despite every newspaper and politician gunning for it still usually manages to deliver top quality care.

Secondly, can we leave off the cryogenic stuff ? The guy is dying, and pretending it will just be a pause is insulting all round. This was a touching and accepting note written by a skilled hand - and he is not blathering on about the next life. Please leave it be

View on HN

On the subject of Scottish authors and the UK welfare state - my opinion of JK Rowling went up quite a bit when I learned of her attitude towards paying taxes (and I'm sure Iain would approve):

http://timidheathen.tumblr.com/post/7043004518/jk-rowling-on...

She talked about that on Colbert a little while back.

I couldn't find any interviews with Rowling on the Colbert Report, but I did find this for The Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-15-2012/j-k--r...

Was that the episode you were referring to?

Ah, that's the one.

Personally, I'm glad to see cryonics being given more attention and discussion. It is a subject not well understood, even among biologists. If you think people undergoing it today are wasting their money (arguable, though I don't concede to it being obvious), there is still something of value to be gained by discussing the specific obstacles it faces, particularly in a technically inclined entrepreneurial crowd like HN. Many of us are younger, and will benefit from technological development that is only in the beginning stages at this point.

> I just want to highlight two things, firstly his support for the NHS

Which is meaningless; an anecdotal impression is not data.

> Secondly, can we leave off the cryogenic stuff ? The guy is dying, and pretending it will just be a pause is insulting all round.

Some people think that cryogenics is a better chance of resurrection than burying a body in dirt. The case isn't settled, but it's not a stupid or crazy belief. Even if the chance is only 0.1%, it's worth talking about. The chance of my house burning down is only 0.1% or so, and I still buy fire insurance.

(And, no, I'm not a big believer in cryogenics; I merely want to argue that discussion about it is reasonable.)

> Some people think that cryogenics is a better chance of resurrection than burying a body in dirt.

And some people think burying a body in dirt is the best chance of resurrection. These beliefs do not seem, at this point in time, differentially stupid or crazy.

It is quite all right to hold such beliefs, but bringing them up every time someone dies as if-only-they-had is rather insensitive.

> These beliefs do not seem, at this point in time, differentially stupid or crazy.

How did you reach that point of view?

There is no proof for either, and both are purely based on hope. We have no technology available to resurrect frozen people and we don't know if such a technology will ever be available, and religious people don't know if they will be resurrected in the afterlife - they can only hope. The key word here is belief/hope.

Isn't this more a question of the relative strength of objective evidence? I have a problem with the idea that hope in and of itself is a bad thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com