Robert Bradbury wrote:
> > If cryonics suspension costs $100K, then 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.
This makes no sense to me. $100K is $100K, however you slice it.
>Or if you are a very wealthy individual (as two potential cryonics
>candidates I knew were), then the $100K is discounted even more
I showed in my example how to correct for wealth. If your income
were $500K/yr instead of $50K/yr, then the cutoff would drop to 0.25%.
>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.
Huh? If they are not religious, they are not donating to churches.
>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?
A nanosanta world is *far* from guaranteed. And most people I know discount
cryonics revival years because they expect to be without familiar friends
and family.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:50 MDT