On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> If cryonics suspension costs $100K, the forever, using the above numbers
> it wouldn't make sense unless there was a 2.5% chance of it making you
> life forever, or a 5% chance of making you live thirty years.
>
I understand this, but you are presuming some real "cost" associated
with the $100K. If I'm paying for the suspension with insurance dollars
then the cost is discounted depending on whether I'm frozen before
I've vested my $100K. Or if you are a very wealthy individual (as
two potential cryonics candidates I knew were), then the $100K is
discounted even more because its money at the margin where the tradeoffs
are not in "personal survival" but in "perceived quality of life" issues.
Now, if you have children, college educations, etc. to worry about, then
I would agree that the $100K may not be insignificant and you would want
higher confidence that cryonics would work. But since since many people
(with exceptions on the list noted) involved in cryonics are not
particularly religious, the funds invested in cryonics could otherwise
be looked at as funds you would donate to your church. In that respect
voting for cryonics vs. religion as an insurance policy on an afterlife
seems to favor cryonics with little relative lifestyle sacrifice vis-a-vis
others in similar positions in your community choosing the religious
insurance approach. Its only if you choose cryonics *and* religion
as insurance policies that you have to sacrifice someplace else.
Assuming being revived from cryonic suspension, means a nanotech era where
diseases are solved and the accident rate allows you to live 2000-5000 years
in a nanosanta world (when a year then is *more* valuable than a year now
because you don't have to work to survive), what would the success chances
have to be to justify the $100K? (If required, assume you are suspended
for 50 years, which seems about right.)
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:49 MDT