lavalamp comments on Cryonic suspension where? - Less Wrong

16 Post author: lavalamp 27 September 2011 11:32PM

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

Comments (16)

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

Comment author: lavalamp 29 September 2011 01:45:18PM 0 points [-]

Actually, I was thinking the other way around-- paying dues at CI and then not using their services can only be good for CI, right?

But not paying a few decades of dues at Alcor and then using their services may break one of their assumptions ("X percent of people that want to be frozen will join for Y decades before actually getting frozen"). If that's the case, someone doing that would effectively be freeloading on all the people who did sign up early and pay dues for decades. I imagine that Alcor expects a lot of people to sign up later in life rather than earlier, and that is priced into their dues. However, I'd be surprised if they expect everyone to do that.

Comment author: jhuffman 29 September 2011 02:52:32PM 0 points [-]

They charge a $25,000 or $50,000 fee for non-members - I would assume they would refuse you membership if you came to them very late in life. As far as their assumptions about at what age you can become a member, you may be right but I my guess is these fees are only used to support their front-office on a year-to-year basis.

Comment author: lavalamp 29 September 2011 03:40:34PM *  0 points [-]

Presumably I'd switch in time to avoid that huge penalty (which I wasn't aware of, thanks). If I have a chance, I'll try and dig around to see what those fees are for. If you're correct, then it would seem that there's no downside to signing up with CI and then switching in two or three decades.

(Other than the risk that I'd actually die between now and then and be frozen in an inferior way. But realistically, if I die between now and then it will most likely be a surprise and I doubt Alcor can do much better with surprises than CI; maybe I'm wrong.)