5 ms·

Sorry, but cryonics is a scam. The chances of extending life using cryonics are so low, that any investment into cryonics would decrease you current quality of

Sorry, but cryonics is a scam. The chances of extending life using cryonics are so low, that any investment into cryonics would decrease you current quality of life, not improve it [by extending your life into future]. http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html http://aidevelopment.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryonics.html

Eliezer 17y ago
Answered in standard FAQs: http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics
- arakyd 17y ago
  Actually those FAQs do not challenge the central point of that blog post, which is that reasonable people can have wildly different estimates of the likelihood of successful preservation and reconstruction, and that most people judge it too much of a long shot to be worth the money. Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success (I'll make an exception for Robin Hansen), and would rather talk about the importance of participation and securing more funding based on the fact that the probability of success is non-zero, and pro-life-esque ethical arguments about the value of human life.
  - Eliezer 17y ago
    Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success Sounds simply wrong to me, and I know a lot of cryonics advocates. The ones I know try to explain why current vitrification technology ought to preserve neural microstructure. Others work on better vitrification technology. I really don't know where you're getting this from.
    - arakyd 17y ago
      Sorry, it would be more accurate to restrict that to "Based on the above FAQs and other discussions on Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong, cryonics advocates don't seem...." From http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html#_VQ_ http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html#_VQ_: What is the chance that cryonics will work ? The chance that cryonics will work depends greatly upon the conditions under which a person is cryopreserved. [...] Probability estimates of future technology cannot be anything other than guesswork, although molecular repair technology does appear to be inevitable. [...] Rather than passively attempting to calculate probability, a person is better advised to realized that preparation to prevent potential problems will greatly affect the probability of success for that person and his/her loved-ones. The chance that cryonics will work also depends greatly upon how much money and effort is put into the technologies and organizational enhancements that can make cryonics work. [...] From http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm: What can scientists disagree on about cryonics? [...] The likelihood that technologies capable of the required analysis, repair, and tissue regeneration will be developed. The practicality of maintaining cryopreserved people long enough for such technologies to be developed. [...] The ethics of not cryopreserving people until cryonics is proven to work. There certainly is plenty of discussion about vitrification, but that is a relatively small part of the equation. Looking at Robin Hansen's post again, he links another breakdown of the total chance of success at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html. These are the only two attempts I know of, and they do a pretty good job of showing how speculative the whole thing is and how much variation that produces in the estimates.
      - sho 17y ago
        Well, yes, it's still a bit of a leap of faith. But a slim chance is better than none at all, right? As long as it doesn't influence one's life choices - ie, relying on a successful reanimation to fulfil some goal or what not - I don't see why anyone would not at least give it a shot. Best case scenario, you wake up healthy and hearty in the magnificent future. Worst case scenario, you're dead. But if you don't freeze you're dead anyway, for sure. So why not?

Eliezer 17y ago

Answered in standard FAQs: http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Cryonics

arakyd 17y ago
Actually those FAQs do not challenge the central point of that blog post, which is that reasonable people can have wildly different estimates of the likelihood of successful preservation and reconstruction, and that most people judge it too much of a long shot to be worth the money. Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success (I'll make an exception for Robin Hansen), and would rather talk about the importance of participation and securing more funding based on the fact that the probability of success is non-zero, and pro-life-esque ethical arguments about the value of human life.
- Eliezer 17y ago
  Cryonics advocates are by and large not very interested in trying to justify estimates that give a reasonable chance of success Sounds simply wrong to me, and I know a lot of cryonics advocates. The ones I know try to explain why current vitrification technology ought to preserve neural microstructure. Others work on better vitrification technology. I really don't know where you're getting this from.
  - arakyd 17y ago
    Sorry, it would be more accurate to restrict that to "Based on the above FAQs and other discussions on Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong, cryonics advocates don't seem...." From http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html#_VQ_ http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/CryoFAQ.html#_VQ_: What is the chance that cryonics will work ? The chance that cryonics will work depends greatly upon the conditions under which a person is cryopreserved. [...] Probability estimates of future technology cannot be anything other than guesswork, although molecular repair technology does appear to be inevitable. [...] Rather than passively attempting to calculate probability, a person is better advised to realized that preparation to prevent potential problems will greatly affect the probability of success for that person and his/her loved-ones. The chance that cryonics will work also depends greatly upon how much money and effort is put into the technologies and organizational enhancements that can make cryonics work. [...] From http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm: What can scientists disagree on about cryonics? [...] The likelihood that technologies capable of the required analysis, repair, and tissue regeneration will be developed. The practicality of maintaining cryopreserved people long enough for such technologies to be developed. [...] The ethics of not cryopreserving people until cryonics is proven to work. There certainly is plenty of discussion about vitrification, but that is a relatively small part of the equation. Looking at Robin Hansen's post again, he links another breakdown of the total chance of success at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/WillCryonicsWork.html. These are the only two attempts I know of, and they do a pretty good job of showing how speculative the whole thing is and how much variation that produces in the estimates.
    - sho 17y ago
      Well, yes, it's still a bit of a leap of faith. But a slim chance is better than none at all, right? As long as it doesn't influence one's life choices - ie, relying on a successful reanimation to fulfil some goal or what not - I don't see why anyone would not at least give it a shot. Best case scenario, you wake up healthy and hearty in the magnificent future. Worst case scenario, you're dead. But if you don't freeze you're dead anyway, for sure. So why not?