3 ms·
So your argument is that the best possible thing you could do with a large sum of cash upon your demise is to gamble away on the vanishingly small chance that a
by jongalt 18y ago
So your argument is that the best possible thing you could do with a large sum of cash upon your demise is to gamble away on the vanishingly small chance that a very distant and almost magically technologically advanced society will "resurrect" you?
It's a matter of opportunity cost. What do you have to give up, in order to have this miniscule chance? Which is most valuable:
- putting your kids through college for sure
- financially assisting your still living loved ones for sure
- paying for expensive life saving surgery for someone who can't afford it for sure
- investing in what amounts to a lottery ticket that pays out only in a tiny percentage of potential future universes
Even if I was completely disinterested in the fate of the rest of humanity, I think I'd still choose to go out with a bang now, for sure, than to throw my hard earned cash into a futile attempt to keep me fresh in the freezer.
- jodrellblank 18y agoHow is cryogenics any different than paying for expensive life saving surgery for someone who can't afford it? (You're paying for expensive life saving surgery for yourself).
- mdakin 18y agoAs of right now the promise of cryogenics is analogous to snake-oil and various forms of alternative medicine. Surgery is something that works, we know why it works, how it works, how to do it again and again, how to gage the probability of success in particular cases even. In other words surgery is something on par with science and engineering. Comparatively the promise of cryogenics is like science fiction and magic. I'm all for people engaging in cryogenics, alternative medicine, snake-oils, gods and magic if they have the money and desire but these sort of silly arguments and rationalizations about them I do not understand at all.