= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on How Likely Is Cryonics To Work? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (122)
The money would come from interest. Presumably, the company would be set up in such a way that they can't use the money for thawing until they thaw you out.
If Alcor doesn't set aside money, and doesn't let the money set aside for freezing that doesn't end up being used get used as such, I'd suggest either finding a place that does, or just setting up a trust yourself. Make it accrue interest until it reaches a given amount accounting for deflation, and donate the interest to charity or something, then make it pay off to Alcor, or whoever thaws you, when they do.
If these people really aren't planning ahead that much, should some of us get together and start a fund like that? That way, you hire a company to freeze you, and join one of the funds to thaw you.
A few other ways you could get thawed:
A charity starts thawing people. People who have been thawed will tend to be willing to donate.
At some point, the cost of thawing gets low enough compared to keeping frozen, and the interest rate reduces enough, that it becomes cheaper to thaw people than to keep them frozen. This won't work if the interest rate falls enough to make the cryonics companies go out of business before that's possible. On the other hand, if they figure out how to thaw people before that happens, the government will likely step in to keep them from dying.
That's not quite how interest rates work.
To put it another way, the $25,000 Alcor has in interest will end up as $25,925. Inflation will bring this down to $25,146. Which means that Alcor can afford to spend about $150 dollars each year keeping you frozen before it starts cannibalizing the saved money. That strikes me as rather low, but according to Alcor they've budgeted to keep you frozen indefinitely. Realistically, I'd expect zero money left over as interest.
Charities strike me as unlikely. We already have trouble saving African children for $500 a life; I doubt donors would give hundreds of thousands of dollars per life to thaw out people who lived full lives already. Hell, I want to get cryonics and I'd still donate to a more efficient charity.
The only way you'd get thawed is if thawing costs + doctor costs + the cost for a new body + physical therapy costs ended up at roughly what you have saved now in real purchasing power. That means roughly, 7000 big macs, the average price of a new car, or about half a year's work. And if we're at the point where the average family can afford multiple back-up bodies (like we have multiple cars today), we're probably damn near to a post-scarcity society anyways. I mean, we're talking about a future where it's cheaper to upload your consciousness to the office and inhabit a temporary shell while you work than it is to drive (though at that point I doubt labor would look anything like what we're used to).
If that doesn't qualify as post-friendly-singularity than I don't know what does.
Savings accounts aren't exactly known for having a high return on investment. Accept a little risk, and spread out the investment so it won't all get lost. Also, keep enough extra to survive recessions.
The people saved by it can't easily donate to it. People thawed out can.
What matters is what alcor etc are actually doing. Alcor has this on their website on the distribution of their investment fund:
This doesn't look very risky, which is good in that they're unlikely to lose it but bad in that they're unlikely to do much above inflation in the long term.
Did they not mention how much interest they've been getting?
From that link:
They understand that the money is supposed to eventually pay for you revival. But as you seemed to show, they're likely being stupid with it so it won't be there.
Yes: "The Investment Account had a total annual return of 17.01% for 2009 and 6.18% for 2010". Which is well above inflation. Though I think the market as a whole also might have done well over that period?
I don't know enough about what they are doing or about what is good to say whether they are being stupid. But if they are being conservative, as trusts and foundations tend to, then there is a good chance they won't make much if any money in the long term.
Keeping people frozen is cheap: you just need to top up the liquid nitrogen once in a while to compensate for evaporation; and I guess that as they make better and better dewars and better and better technology for liquefying nitrogen, the storage prices per year will fall even more.
Exponential economic growth can't continue forever, which would suggest that the interest rate will fall arbitrarily low, so the cost of keeping someone frozen forever will increase.
But yeah, I think significantly underestimated the time until it would be worth while.
Come to think of it, there might be a point where it's cheaper to wake you and then put you in debt for a while, but that's a legal and ethical tricky area unless the user signs a contract before-hand.
Edit:
I should probably practice being a bit more straightforward with admitting errors.
You are right. I was wrong.