it is a huge mistake to claim that [one's own cryopreservation] is purely self interest or at odds with charitable interests. Rather it helps lay the groundwork for a hugely important philanthropic interest.

OK, you are appealing to the the same argument that can be used to argue that the consumers of the 1910s who purchased and used the first automobiles were philanthropists for supporting a fledgling industry which went on to cause a substantial rise in the average standard of living. Do I have that right?

If so, the magnitude of the ability of cryonics to extend life expectency might cause me to admit that your words "huge" and "hugely" are justified -- but only under value systems that assign no utility to the people who will be born or created after the intelligence explosion. Relative to the number of people alive now or who will be born before the intelligence explosion, the expected number of lives after it is huge, and cryonics is of no benefit to those lives whereas any effort we make towards reducing x-risks benefits both the relatively tiny number of people alive now and the huge number that will live later.

The 3 main reasons most philanthropists do not direct their efforts at x-risks reduction are (1) they do not know and will not learn about the intelligence explosion and (2) even if they know about it, it is difficult for them to stay motivated when the object of their efforts are as abstract as people who will not start their lives for 100s of years -- they need to travel to Africa or what not and see the faces of the people they have helped -- or at least they need to know that if they were to travel to Africa or what not, they would -- and (3) they could figure out how to stay motivated to help those who will not start their lives for 100s of years if they wanted to, but they do not want to -- their circle of concern does extend that far into the future (that is, they assign zero or very little intrinsic value to a life that starts in the far future).

But the people whose philanthropic enterprise is to get people to sign up for cryonics do not have excuses (1) and (2). So, I have to conclude that their circle of moral concern stops (or become very thin) before the start of the intelligence explosion or they know that their enterprise is extremely inefficient philanthropy relative to x-risks reduction. Do you see any holes in my reasoning?

There are those (e.g., Carl and Nancy in these pages in the last few days and Roko in the past IIRC) who have taken the position that getting people to sign up for cryonics tends to reduce x-risks. I plan a top-level submission with my rebuttal to that position.