4 ms·
That's a good point. You can look it this way: life after rewarming can last for hundreds of years, easily a thousand as medical technology will have advanced
by nawitus 14y ago
That's a good point.
You can look it this way: life after rewarming can last for hundreds of years, easily a thousand as medical technology will have advanced at that point. People are currently willing to pay $100k in medical bills to extend their life by about one year with 50% chance, which means that the cost is $200k per year.
Cryopreservation also costs about $100k (slightly more in real life I guess, I'm rounding numbers for simplicity).
If cryopreservation has a 1% of success to extend life by 1000 years for $100k, then they will "buy" 1 year for $10k. Of course, you can change the numbers (in any direction), e.g. 100 years of life would come out to $100k per year, still cheaper than what most people are willing to pay today to live slightly longer. The 1% success rate is rather pessimistic, too.
If you take quality of life into consideration, the argument starts to favour cryonics quite heavily (we can assume that life is a lot better in the future thanks to advancement of technology).
- mikeash 14y ago> The 1% success rate is rather pessimistic, too. Where do you get that? From what little I understand, 1% seems highly optimistic, given how destructive the freezing process is at the moment.
- nawitus 14y agoIt's my own estimation based on the evidence I've seen. There's plenty of detail when you look at neural tissue using a microscope: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.htm...
- polyfractal 14y agoThat is not peer-reviewed research, and therefore I treat it about as seriously as I treat any other comment on the internet: at best incompetent, at worst maliciously deceiving. Considering its published by a company that makes money from freezing people...probably the latter.
- lsparrish 14y agoBy all means, please, show us peer reviewed sources that contradict it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- davidgerard 14y agoIt so, so doesn't work like that. You don't get to make a spurious claim and then defy anyone who objects to find evidence it's false. You personally were told this in excruciating detail on http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Cryonics http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Cryonics . Cryonicists really just don't get burden of proof.