6 ms·

The world doesn't have to be like this. Not anymore. It's too late for my little brother - but Kim Suozzi made it, and it's not too late for you, or any of yo

by Eliezer 14y ago

The world doesn't have to be like this. Not anymore. It's too late for my little brother - but Kim Suozzi made it, and it's not too late for you, or any of your loved ones who are still alive. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics

rpm4321 14y ago
Hey Eliezer, what do you think it would take to bring the price point of cryonics down to a level where it could become commonplace? Right now, the primary barriers to its widespread addoption are still probably incredulity and religious objections, but I think those would quickly fall by the wayside if it didn't cost as much as a house. Perhaps an X-Prize style competition to develop more cost-effective technologies and techniques?
- nazgulnarsil 14y ago
  Much of the cost is due to regulatory burdens rather than technical.
- AngryParsley 14y ago
  The cost is low enough today that it could be much more common. Even the most expensive set-up (Alcor whole-body, whole life insurance) is about $130/month for a healthy person in their mid 20's. With term life and neuro (head-only), you could cut that in half. Still, only a couple thousand people are signed up. Alcor has published a cost break-down http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonicsTables.txt http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonicsTables.txt and explained it at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonics.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonics.html A big chunk of cash is spent keeping a team on-site while waiting for the person to die. Assisted suicide for the terminally ill would help reduce costs significantly.
  - nodata 14y ago
    > for a healthy person in their mid 20's Oh come on, quoting the cheapest price isn't fair or realistic. How about showing us something more representative, or at least quoting the most expensive rate as well?
    - AngryParsley 14y ago
      I'll address it, but I don't think cost is your true rejection[1]. If I was talking about a highly-experimental cancer treatment, I doubt you'd nitpick the price. Doubly-so if you had cancer. In fact, I bet you'd do your best to estimate its effectiveness. I didn't quote the cheapest price. I quoted what I pay. I have no idea how much older people pay for life insurance. If you looked at their website, you'd see that Alcor dues are $800/year. Neuropreservation is $80k and whole-body is $200k (http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html). This may sound like a lot, but the standard way to pay is to buy life insurance. When you die, the policy pays Alcor. You can see the cost break-down in my GP comment. Alcor is expensive. Cryonics Institute is the budget option. CI dues are $120/year and whole-body preservation costs $35k. CI members usually pay with life insurance as well. CI can charge less because they have less staff. Their research budget is practically zero. Most importantly, they won't camp at your deathbed. IIRC, Eliezer is signed up with CI and pays around $300/year. That's the cheapest price possible. It's often said that getting cryopreserved is the second-worst thing that can happen to you. Cryonics gives you a small chance of living a much longer life. I'll be the first to admit that it's highly unlikely to work. But for myself and many others, the expected value calculation heavily favors signing up. After all, consider the alternative: You die slightly wealthier. 1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/
      - dennisgorelik 14y ago
        "A small change" of living after being cryopreserved after you are declared legally dead is less than your chance to win powerball jackpot with single ticket. The alternative is that you do a little bit more with your life, because you don't spend $120/year and all the mental energy for planning your after-life.
fusiongyro 14y ago
This is just replacing faith in a spiritual deity named God with a material one named Scientific Progress. Defying death will always be lucrative, and the actual demonstration of results will always be forthcoming.
- venus 14y ago
  Sounds like a pretty good replacement to me, considering how scientific progress demonstrably exists, has a stellar track record, excellent prospects, &etc &etc. > Defying death will always be lucrative As it should be! I'll pay literally every cent I have not to die. > the actual demonstration of results will always be forthcoming This is nothing but speculation on your behalf.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    On the contrary, the idea that cryogenics will work is the very definition of speculation.
    - edanm 14y ago
      You write "on the contrary", but your statement didn't actually contradict the parent. Yes, Cryonics is speculation - no one claims otherwise. But you're also speculating in saying that it will never work, which is what I understood from your statement. You're very likely right. But the upside of Cryonics actually working would be worth a lot to most people, if they'd stop to think about it, and afaik might very well make a sensible investment.
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        If your definition of "sensible investment" is "very low probability of very high payout with very high probability of 100% loss" you must think the lottery is another great example of a sensible investment.
        TeMPOraL 14y ago
dennisgorelik 14y ago
"Made it" to where? Paradise?
meric 14y ago
I don't see how this is different to making a clone of me when I die.
- nova 14y ago
  The point is that "you" are already a slightly modified clone of "you" one hour ago. Personal identity is in the causal continuity, not in being made of the "same" atoms, which doesn't even make physical sense. So the true death is the information-theoretic death. Does current cryonics technology prevent that? I don't know, but it's a better shot than the alternative.
  - meric 14y ago
    That's assuming "you" are your body. Here is what I believe instead: "you" are the countless processes running inside your brain, interacting with each other. When these stop, you're dead. When you're asleep, they interact with each other less, and "you" are reduced. When you're in a coma, they interact with each other much less, and "you" are much reduced. But when you're frozen after your brain activity has stopped, anyone revived out of your body isn't "you" anymore. It'll be someone else with your memories. The only benefit of this would not be to you but to your family and friends (if they're still here) or to projects you're working on but want to have finished even if you won't see the results. I suppose there's a chance cryonics can be useful, but only if it manages to "preserve" someone before their brain activity stops (which CAN be after the person is clinically dead, e.g. heart stopping != brain dead), and their brain activity continues at a very slow pace, but continues nonetheless.
    - nova 14y ago
      > When these stop, you're dead. Assuming as hypothesis that cryonics or some other technology manage to preserve all the information about your mind processes and that we can reinstantiate them in a new substrate, what is exactly the difference? Exactly what property of these processes is lost when they stop, if hypothetically cryonics stores all the information? There is nothing else! I think that we have an intuition of having some kind of "ineffable essence", but that's an illusion. (I could accept that current cryonics is insufficient and that some information is lost in the process, but that is a completely different argument.)
snowwrestler 14y ago
This strikes me as exactly the mindset the author of the NY Times piece is writing against.

by Eliezer 14y ago

rpm4321 14y ago

Hey Eliezer, what do you think it would take to bring the price point of cryonics down to a level where it could become commonplace? Right now, the primary barriers to its widespread addoption are still probably incredulity and religious objections, but I think those would quickly fall by the wayside if it didn't cost as much as a house. Perhaps an X-Prize style competition to develop more cost-effective technologies and techniques?

nazgulnarsil 14y ago
Much of the cost is due to regulatory burdens rather than technical.
AngryParsley 14y ago
The cost is low enough today that it could be much more common. Even the most expensive set-up (Alcor whole-body, whole life insurance) is about $130/month for a healthy person in their mid 20's. With term life and neuro (head-only), you could cut that in half. Still, only a couple thousand people are signed up. Alcor has published a cost break-down http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonicsTables.txt http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonicsTables.txt and explained it at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonics.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonics.html A big chunk of cash is spent keeping a team on-site while waiting for the person to die. Assisted suicide for the terminally ill would help reduce costs significantly.
- nodata 14y ago
  > for a healthy person in their mid 20's Oh come on, quoting the cheapest price isn't fair or realistic. How about showing us something more representative, or at least quoting the most expensive rate as well?
  - AngryParsley 14y ago
    I'll address it, but I don't think cost is your true rejection[1]. If I was talking about a highly-experimental cancer treatment, I doubt you'd nitpick the price. Doubly-so if you had cancer. In fact, I bet you'd do your best to estimate its effectiveness. I didn't quote the cheapest price. I quoted what I pay. I have no idea how much older people pay for life insurance. If you looked at their website, you'd see that Alcor dues are $800/year. Neuropreservation is $80k and whole-body is $200k (http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html). This may sound like a lot, but the standard way to pay is to buy life insurance. When you die, the policy pays Alcor. You can see the cost break-down in my GP comment. Alcor is expensive. Cryonics Institute is the budget option. CI dues are $120/year and whole-body preservation costs $35k. CI members usually pay with life insurance as well. CI can charge less because they have less staff. Their research budget is practically zero. Most importantly, they won't camp at your deathbed. IIRC, Eliezer is signed up with CI and pays around $300/year. That's the cheapest price possible. It's often said that getting cryopreserved is the second-worst thing that can happen to you. Cryonics gives you a small chance of living a much longer life. I'll be the first to admit that it's highly unlikely to work. But for myself and many others, the expected value calculation heavily favors signing up. After all, consider the alternative: You die slightly wealthier. 1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/
    - dennisgorelik 14y ago
      "A small change" of living after being cryopreserved after you are declared legally dead is less than your chance to win powerball jackpot with single ticket. The alternative is that you do a little bit more with your life, because you don't spend $120/year and all the mental energy for planning your after-life.

fusiongyro 14y ago

This is just replacing faith in a spiritual deity named God with a material one named Scientific Progress. Defying death will always be lucrative, and the actual demonstration of results will always be forthcoming.

venus 14y ago
Sounds like a pretty good replacement to me, considering how scientific progress demonstrably exists, has a stellar track record, excellent prospects, &etc &etc. > Defying death will always be lucrative As it should be! I'll pay literally every cent I have not to die. > the actual demonstration of results will always be forthcoming This is nothing but speculation on your behalf.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  On the contrary, the idea that cryogenics will work is the very definition of speculation.
  - edanm 14y ago
    You write "on the contrary", but your statement didn't actually contradict the parent. Yes, Cryonics is speculation - no one claims otherwise. But you're also speculating in saying that it will never work, which is what I understood from your statement. You're very likely right. But the upside of Cryonics actually working would be worth a lot to most people, if they'd stop to think about it, and afaik might very well make a sensible investment.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      If your definition of "sensible investment" is "very low probability of very high payout with very high probability of 100% loss" you must think the lottery is another great example of a sensible investment.
      - TeMPOraL 14y ago

dennisgorelik 14y ago

"Made it" to where? Paradise?

meric 14y ago

I don't see how this is different to making a clone of me when I die.

nova 14y ago
The point is that "you" are already a slightly modified clone of "you" one hour ago. Personal identity is in the causal continuity, not in being made of the "same" atoms, which doesn't even make physical sense. So the true death is the information-theoretic death. Does current cryonics technology prevent that? I don't know, but it's a better shot than the alternative.
- meric 14y ago
  That's assuming "you" are your body. Here is what I believe instead: "you" are the countless processes running inside your brain, interacting with each other. When these stop, you're dead. When you're asleep, they interact with each other less, and "you" are reduced. When you're in a coma, they interact with each other much less, and "you" are much reduced. But when you're frozen after your brain activity has stopped, anyone revived out of your body isn't "you" anymore. It'll be someone else with your memories. The only benefit of this would not be to you but to your family and friends (if they're still here) or to projects you're working on but want to have finished even if you won't see the results. I suppose there's a chance cryonics can be useful, but only if it manages to "preserve" someone before their brain activity stops (which CAN be after the person is clinically dead, e.g. heart stopping != brain dead), and their brain activity continues at a very slow pace, but continues nonetheless.
  - nova 14y ago
    > When these stop, you're dead. Assuming as hypothesis that cryonics or some other technology manage to preserve all the information about your mind processes and that we can reinstantiate them in a new substrate, what is exactly the difference? Exactly what property of these processes is lost when they stop, if hypothetically cryonics stores all the information? There is nothing else! I think that we have an intuition of having some kind of "ineffable essence", but that's an illusion. (I could accept that current cryonics is insufficient and that some information is lost in the process, but that is a completely different argument.)

snowwrestler 14y ago

This strikes me as exactly the mindset the author of the NY Times piece is writing against.