5 ms·

One alternative that hasn't been mentioned here is cryopreservation. Once I have the resources and the technology has progressed, I'd certainly choose that opti

by VMG 15y ago

One alternative that hasn't been mentioned here is cryopreservation. Once I have the resources and the technology has progressed, I'd certainly choose that option above being treated and "NO CODE".

Jach 15y ago
Totally on board with cryonics, it's really depressing that it gets swept under the rug considering it probably has at least 5% chance of working for a patient suspended today. Though your excuses for presently avoiding it seem pretty flimsy unless you're really dirt poor (I'd wager unlikely), especially when life insurance payable to the cryonics company is cheap (you only need $28-$35k for CI) and so are membership fees ($120/yr or $1,250 once for CI; I spend more than $120/yr on fast food). But don't get upset, my excuses for not being signed up yet are pretty flimsy too.
- VMG 15y ago
  It's not exactly about the money - I'm in Europe and the only providers I know of are situated in the US. The last time I looked into it they needed a DNA sample from me in person, so at least I'd have to book a trip to go there. But from a cost-benefit perspective, it still is pretty flimsy. Definitively one of my worst cases of akrasia.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  Where did you get this "at least 5% chance of working" number for cryonics? It's at least 3 orders of magnitude lower than that: no one was recovered from that frozen state alive so far.
  - VMG 15y ago
    Your estimate hasn't any foundation either. The question is if we can recover people in the future. The chance of that is basically an unknown. However I'd put it above religion and similar things, which makes it worthwhile.
    - dennisgorelik 15y ago
      The chance that complex technology that has never been tested - works - is very close to zero. That complex technology is freezing human bodies in attempt to preserve it for the future. Even if in the future recovering technologies work - non-working first step (freezing) which is done today - will kill overall process. http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html
      - VMG 15y ago
        Even assuming you have the knowledge that the freezing process is broken, which I doubt you have, I find that any chance greater than zero is worth the investment. I also qualified my original statement by saying that I'd do it if the technology improves. Extrapolating from past life expectancies, there is nearly a hundred years for the technology to develop until I need it. Saying the technology won't be there in a hundred years is a very strong statement.
        dennisgorelik 15y ago
        1) By default new technology is broken (until proven working in tests). There are virtually no examples of new complex technology working without prior testing and improvements. 2) You are extremely optimistic. Life expectancy improves for about 1 year in every 5 years (I'm quite optimistic with that estimate too). So if you are 30 now, then by the time you are 80 life expectancy would change from 78 years (today) to 88 years(50 years from now). So basically you have about 60 more years to live if you are lucky. No way that freezing technology would improve into something meaningful by then.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Setting aside how completely fictitious that 5% is, here are my problems: 1. Cryonics is the sci-fi version of Pascal's Wager. If cryonics is rational, than by the same reasoning so is Christianity. 2. Cryonics doesn't guarantee quality of life. If the brain is poorly preserved, you might be woken up in the far future with profound and irreparable dementia. And I mean "irreparable" not in relation to the limitations of medical science at a given future date, but in a purely information-theoretic sense. There might not be enough information left in your flash-frozen brain. 3. Cultures don't evolve because people change their minds, they evolve because people die and become outnumbered. If there's one thing the future doesn't need, it's us. And likewise, I think we would be shocked by the future. 4. Even if cryonics is theoretically feasible, I would need pretty good assurance that the cryonics company weren't charlatans. The news so far on that front isn't promising.
  - VMG 15y ago
    1. Cryonics doesn't have to violate the laws of physics 2. You can set the terms and conditions under which you want to be woken up 3. Setting aside the lack of evidence for this claim, I want live for selfish reasons 4. This is part of the risk. But there are numerous incentives for cryonic service providers to keep their contracts
  - civilian 15y ago
    1. While Christianity hasn't changed, science & medical capability is increasing. 2. This concern is legitimate. There are going to be people that do not have good quality of life, or even a good brain, after being brought back from cryonics. It's a price. 3. You're arguing for the status Q, not because it's the best, but because it's all we've ever known. I think everyone who is cryonically frozen is ready to be shocked by the future. They understand moral relativity and how it varies with cultures, and they're ready to see what cool stuff our descendants will come up! After centuries of being frozen, I think that it will be legitimately interesting to meet someone from our age, and we may still be able to find a place in that world. I also think that we should be looking at what's best for the individual being frozen, not what's best for a hypothetical culture in the future. If I am reawakened in the far-flung future, I don't have any grand plans of reverting their culture. 4. I met a former employee of Alcor at a conference. She was also signed up with Alcor, and was currently working on cryonically freezing other tissues. She knew her shit, wasn't just locked into cultish thinking, and believed that there is a decent chance of some cryonically frozen people coming back.

by VMG 15y ago

One alternative that hasn't been mentioned here is cryopreservation. Once I have the resources and the technology has progressed, I'd certainly choose that option above being treated and "NO CODE".

Jach 15y ago

Totally on board with cryonics, it's really depressing that it gets swept under the rug considering it probably has at least 5% chance of working for a patient suspended today. Though your excuses for presently avoiding it seem pretty flimsy unless you're really dirt poor (I'd wager unlikely), especially when life insurance payable to the cryonics company is cheap (you only need $28-$35k for CI) and so are membership fees ($120/yr or $1,250 once for CI; I spend more than $120/yr on fast food). But don't get upset, my excuses for not being signed up yet are pretty flimsy too.

VMG 15y ago
It's not exactly about the money - I'm in Europe and the only providers I know of are situated in the US. The last time I looked into it they needed a DNA sample from me in person, so at least I'd have to book a trip to go there. But from a cost-benefit perspective, it still is pretty flimsy. Definitively one of my worst cases of akrasia.
dennisgorelik 15y ago
Where did you get this "at least 5% chance of working" number for cryonics? It's at least 3 orders of magnitude lower than that: no one was recovered from that frozen state alive so far.
- VMG 15y ago
  Your estimate hasn't any foundation either. The question is if we can recover people in the future. The chance of that is basically an unknown. However I'd put it above religion and similar things, which makes it worthwhile.
  - dennisgorelik 15y ago
    The chance that complex technology that has never been tested - works - is very close to zero. That complex technology is freezing human bodies in attempt to preserve it for the future. Even if in the future recovering technologies work - non-working first step (freezing) which is done today - will kill overall process. http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html
    - VMG 15y ago
      Even assuming you have the knowledge that the freezing process is broken, which I doubt you have, I find that any chance greater than zero is worth the investment. I also qualified my original statement by saying that I'd do it if the technology improves. Extrapolating from past life expectancies, there is nearly a hundred years for the technology to develop until I need it. Saying the technology won't be there in a hundred years is a very strong statement.
      - dennisgorelik 15y ago
        1) By default new technology is broken (until proven working in tests). There are virtually no examples of new complex technology working without prior testing and improvements. 2) You are extremely optimistic. Life expectancy improves for about 1 year in every 5 years (I'm quite optimistic with that estimate too). So if you are 30 now, then by the time you are 80 life expectancy would change from 78 years (today) to 88 years(50 years from now). So basically you have about 60 more years to live if you are lucky. No way that freezing technology would improve into something meaningful by then.
philwelch 15y ago
Setting aside how completely fictitious that 5% is, here are my problems: 1. Cryonics is the sci-fi version of Pascal's Wager. If cryonics is rational, than by the same reasoning so is Christianity. 2. Cryonics doesn't guarantee quality of life. If the brain is poorly preserved, you might be woken up in the far future with profound and irreparable dementia. And I mean "irreparable" not in relation to the limitations of medical science at a given future date, but in a purely information-theoretic sense. There might not be enough information left in your flash-frozen brain. 3. Cultures don't evolve because people change their minds, they evolve because people die and become outnumbered. If there's one thing the future doesn't need, it's us. And likewise, I think we would be shocked by the future. 4. Even if cryonics is theoretically feasible, I would need pretty good assurance that the cryonics company weren't charlatans. The news so far on that front isn't promising.
- VMG 15y ago
  1. Cryonics doesn't have to violate the laws of physics 2. You can set the terms and conditions under which you want to be woken up 3. Setting aside the lack of evidence for this claim, I want live for selfish reasons 4. This is part of the risk. But there are numerous incentives for cryonic service providers to keep their contracts
- civilian 15y ago
  1. While Christianity hasn't changed, science & medical capability is increasing. 2. This concern is legitimate. There are going to be people that do not have good quality of life, or even a good brain, after being brought back from cryonics. It's a price. 3. You're arguing for the status Q, not because it's the best, but because it's all we've ever known. I think everyone who is cryonically frozen is ready to be shocked by the future. They understand moral relativity and how it varies with cultures, and they're ready to see what cool stuff our descendants will come up! After centuries of being frozen, I think that it will be legitimately interesting to meet someone from our age, and we may still be able to find a place in that world. I also think that we should be looking at what's best for the individual being frozen, not what's best for a hypothetical culture in the future. If I am reawakened in the far-flung future, I don't have any grand plans of reverting their culture. 4. I met a former employee of Alcor at a conference. She was also signed up with Alcor, and was currently working on cryonically freezing other tissues. She knew her shit, wasn't just locked into cultish thinking, and believed that there is a decent chance of some cryonically frozen people coming back.