Brent Allsop wrote:
> Spike Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> > I have seen the cryonics notion go mainstream one person at a time,
> > because of my risk/payoff matrix I display in my office. People get
> > a 1000 km stare for a minute or two, then ask how much it costs,
> > then say something like "Well, I don't really see any good reason
> > not to get frozen I suppose. A long shot is better than no shot."
> This is great, but how do you respond to atheist, which
> comonly point out the falacy of "Pascal's wager" as an argument for
> believing in God, that also claims such a "A long shot is better than
> no shot." is the same invalid argument? I tried to make a response
> but I have a feeling that I could or should have had a much better
> response to this assertion.
In Pascal's Wager, you pay a significant price - altering your
beliefs, style of living, morals, et cetera - which is a significant
cost if the bet is wrong. With cryo, the low prices mean you *don't*
pay a significant cost; the cost is also easily quantifiable in
dollars, unlike what Pascal asked. Plus, the reward (if cryo pays off)
is less than infinite (it being standard practice to quantify the value
of a human life in these sorts of situations these days), as opposed to
the supposedly infinite benefit of Heaven, so it is possible to
rationally calculate the cost/benefit ratios (subject, of course, to
how much value you place on your own life).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:02 MDT