My girlfriend/SO's grandfather died last night, running on a treadmill when his heart gave out.
He wasn't signed up for cryonics, of course. She tried to convince him, and I tried myself a little the one time I met her grandparents.
"This didn't have to happen. Fucking religion."
That's what my girlfriend said.
I asked her if I could share that with you, and she said yes.
Just so that we're clear that all the wonderful emotional benefits of self-delusion come with a price, and the price isn't just to you.
I'm obviously not being very clear. I'm not making a case that it's irrational to sign up for cryonics - I'm just saying it's not appropriate for someone with a very high risk-aversion, such as myself. I'm informed by the same person who taught me about levels of risk aversion in the first place that no given level of risk aversion is necessarily irrational or irrational; it's just a personal characteristic. It's quite possible that by making these choices you'll be around, enjoying a great quality of life, in four thousand years, and I won't. That would be awesome for you and less awesome for me. I'm just not willing to take the bet.
Describing this as being averse to risks doesn't make much sense to me. Couldn't a pro-cryonics person equally well justify her decision as being motivated by risk aversion? By choosing not to be preserved in the event of death, you risk missing out on futures that are worth living in. If you want to take this into bizarre and unlikely science fiction ideas, as with your dystopian cannon fodder speculation, you could easily construct nightmare scenarios where cryonics is the better choice. Simply declaring yourself to have "high risk aversion" do... (read more)