= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on Life insurance for Cryonics, how many years? - 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 (12)
There's a pretty good chance that in 10 years, you will have a good deal more information about the efficacy of cryonics; the best options; and/or your personal financial situation. So there's something to be said for buying a 20 year level policy and reevaluating things half-way through.
Yes, you are taking the risk that during the next 10 years you will become uninsurable and unable to earn the necessary money to save for 10 years and pay out of pocket. But I would guess this is a pretty small risk compared to the other risks you face, for example the risk of dying in such a way that cryonics is unable to preserve you.
FWIW I carry a good deal of term insurance; no whole life insurance; and am not signed up with Alcor or anyone else. I am very much taking a "wait and see" approach, which I realize is less conservative than signing up now and doing it with whole life insurance.
Your chances of dying before middle age are relatively small. Your chances of dying in a way that renders your brain preservable, before middle age, are astronomically small. Thus, although whole life costs around 2^3 as much as term, whole life provides something around 2^8 the benefit.
Well that assumes that you do nothing to fund cryonics but purchase life insurance, right? And it also assumes that the economics of cryonics are basically static, right?
Keep in mind that the risk of dying in an unrecoverable way and the risk of becoming uninsurable and destitute are fairly independent (actually, they're negatively correlated: they can't both happen!). As such, it doesn't matter which is bigger or how they compare to each other. Each should be evaluated and addressed separately.
I am inclined to disagree with this. For example, let's suppose it would cost me $2,000 to sign up for cryonics with a 99% chance of success and $3,000 to sign up for cryonics with a 100% chance of success. I wold probably take the second option. On the other hand, if the $2,000 option gave me a 25% chance of success and the $3000 option gave me a 26% chance of success, I would probably take the first.
Is that irrational? Am I committing some kind of fallacy here? Are my choices logically inconsistent? Which would you choose?
Maybe the "separately" should be removed from my comment. Each risk should be considered, whether together or separately. It's not an either/or choice, it's a both are real situation.
Yes, that set of choices is irrational. If a 1% chance of irreversible death is worth more than $1000 for you to prevent, that's true regardless of your base chance.
Why does that make it irrational? Why is it irrational that the amount of risk you are already facing can and should affect the amount you are willing to pay to avoid further risk?
Or to put it in more formal terms, why is it irrational to have a non-linear utility function?