MichaelGR comments on Normal Cryonics - Less Wrong

58 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 January 2010 07:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (930)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MichaelGR 20 January 2010 03:02:39PM 0 points [-]

Personally, I have a mild preference towards being alive rather than dead, but it's not strong enough to motivate me to look at cryonics options. (Especially since their availability in Europe is rather bad.)

Do you think that there might be a link between these two things?

Aubrey de Grey often talks about the "pro-death trance", and says that as long as people think that death from the diseases of aging is inevitable, they'll find ways to rationalize why "it's a good thing" or at least "not so bad".

Do you think that if Cryonics was widely available where you are and that it was affordable (a hundred Euros a year life insurance, f.ex.) that this would increase your interest in it?

Comment author: whpearson 21 January 2010 11:43:54AM 1 point [-]

I have pretty much the same view as Kaj, I'd get cryonics if it was cheap.

If I did I'd want to put a note that I'd be okay with people using my brain for science when they needed it to test scanning equipment and the like. For some reason I can associate better and feel more positive about imagining papers being published about my brain than being reincarnated in silicon (or carbon nanotubes).

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 20 January 2010 03:06:45PM 1 point [-]

Do you think that if Cryonics was widely available where you are and that it was affordable (a hundred Euros a year life insurance, f.ex.) that this would increase your interest in it?

Probably, yes.

Comment author: UnholySmoke 21 January 2010 03:09:08PM 1 point [-]

I often have this thought, and then get a nasty sick feeling along the lines of 'what the hell kind of expected utility calculation am I doing that weighs a second shot at life against some amount of cash?' Argument rejected!

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 January 2010 03:17:11PM 7 points [-]

This has to be a rationality error. Given that it's far from guaranteed to work, there has to be an amount that cryonics could cost such that it wouldn't be worth signing up. I'm not saying that the real costs are that high, just that if you're making a rational decision such an amount will exist.

Comment author: UnholySmoke 21 January 2010 04:52:36PM 8 points [-]

Sorry, should have given more context.

Given the sky-high utility I'd place on living, I wouldn't expect to see the numbers crunch down to a place where a non-huge sum of money is the difference between signing up and not.

So when someone says 'if it were half the price maybe I'd sign up' I'm always interested to know exactly what calculations they're performing, and exactly what it is that reduces the billions of utilons of living down to a marginal cash sum. The (tiny?) chance of cryonics working? Serious coincidence if those factors cancel comfortably. Just smacks of bottom-line to me.

Put it this way - imagine cryonics has been seriously, prohibitively expensive for many years after introduction. Say it still was today, for some reason, and then after much debate and hand-wringing about immortality for the uber-rich, tomorrow suddenly and very publicly dropped to current levels, I'd expect to see a huge upswing in signing up. Such is the human being!

Comment author: ciphergoth 21 January 2010 06:31:43PM 1 point [-]

I agree with all of this.