In a message dated 6/19/00 10:36:33 AM Central Daylight Time, rhanson@gmu.edu
writes:
> Your attitudes only make sense it you postulate a life of infinite value
> given
> cryonics success. If you don't estimate a life of infinite duration, or if
> your values assign diminishing returns to long life, such as via
discounting
> the future, then the probability of success matters.
>
> Let me illustrate with a calculation. A typical value of life-year is
> twice a yearly income. For a yearly income of $50K, this is $100K/yr,
which
> at a 2.5% discount rate gives you a value of life forever of $4M, and $2M
> for living thirty years more. These are the sorts of ballpark numbers
> health economists use to make sense of observed choices between money and
> risk of death in cars, jobs, etc.
>
> 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.
Robin, just in case you were wondering why economics is called "the dismal
science", re-read that . . . .
Just kidding.
Sort of.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:49 MDT