shminux comments on Why I haven't signed up for cryonics - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Swimmer963 12 January 2014 05:16AM

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

Comments (249)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: shminux 12 January 2014 07:27:14PM *  5 points [-]

Initially I wanted to mention that there is one more factor: the odds of being effectively cryopreserved upon dying. I.e. being in a hospital amenable to cryonics and with a cryo team standing by, with enough of your brain intact to keep your identity. This excludes most accidental deaths, massive stroke, etc. However, the CDC data for the US http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm show that currently over 85% of all deaths appear to be cryo-compatible:

  • Number of deaths: 2,468,435
  • Death rate: 799.5 deaths per 100,000 population
  • Life expectancy: 78.7 years
  • Infant Mortality rate: 6.15 deaths per 1,000 live births

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

  • Heart disease: 597,689
  • Cancer: 574,743
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
  • Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
  • Diabetes: 69,071
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
  • Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

So, given how ballpark all your estimates are, this one factor is probably irrelevant.

Comment author: roystgnr 15 January 2014 06:56:53PM 3 points [-]

What percent of young people's deaths are cryo-compatible? Hypothetically, if most 70-80 year old people who die are in a hospital bed weeks after a terminal diagnosis, but most 30-40 year old people who die are in a wrecked car with paramedics far away, it might make sense for a 34 year old on the fence to forgo the cryonics membership and extra life insurance now but save the money he would have spent on premiums to sign up later in life.