As I wrote in a comment to the survey results post, the interpretation of assignment of low probability to cryonics as some sort of disagreement or opposition is misleading:
... if ... probability of global catastrophe ... [is] taken into account ... even though I'm almost certain that cryonics fundamentally works, I gave only something like 3% probability. Should I really be classified as "doesn't believe in cryonics"?
Of course not. Why the low probability is important is because it defeats the simplistic non-probabilistic usual accounts of cultists as believing in dogmatic shibboleths; if Bart119 were sophisticated enough to say that 10% is still too much, then we can move the discussion to a higher plane of disagreement than simply claiming 'LW seems obsessed with cryonics', hopefully good arguments like '$250k is too much to pay for such a risky shot at future life' or 'organizational mortality implies <1% chance of cryopreservation over centuries and the LW avera...
From Costanza's original thread (entire text):
Meta: