5 ms·

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

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.

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.