Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

James_D._Miller comments on You Only Live Twice - Less Wrong

85 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 December 2008 07:14PM

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

Comments (174)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: James_D._Miller 12 December 2008 08:53:16PM 17 points [-]

I have signed up with Alcor. When I suggest to other people that they should sign up the common response has been that they wouldn't want to be brought back to life after they died.

I don't understand this response. I'm almost certain that if most of these people found out they had cancer and would die unless they got a treatment and (1) with the treatment they would have only a 20% chance of survival, (2) the treatment would be very painful, (3) the treatment would be very expensive, and (4) if the treatment worked they would be unhealthy for the rest of their lives; then almost all of these cryonics rejectors would take the treatment.

One of the primary cost of cryonics is the "you seem insane tax" one has to pay if people find out you have signed up. Posts like this will hopefully reduce the cryonics insanity tax.

Comment author: Princess_Stargirl 21 December 2014 06:56:31PM 1 point [-]

This is more than slightly odd. I am considering cryonics but I would never take that cancer treatment. It seems like a horrible deal .

Comment author: Jiro 21 December 2014 07:21:11PM 2 points [-]

I find the idea of cryonics having a 20% chance of working to be orders of magnitude too optimistic.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 December 2014 09:23:47PM 1 point [-]

I'm almost certain that if most of these people found out they had cancer and would die unless they got a treatment and (1) with the treatment they would have only a 20% chance of survival, (2) the treatment would be very painful, (3) the treatment would be very expensive, and (4) if the treatment worked they would be unhealthy for the rest of their lives; then almost all of these cryonics rejectors would take the treatment.

It's painful, expensive, leaves you in ill health the rest of your (shortened) life, and you've only got a 20% chance?

Why would someone take that deal?

Comment author: Swimmer963 15 January 2015 07:38:52PM 0 points [-]

I actually had a nightmare recently where I was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and would have preferred not to go through treatment, but felt pressured by other, more aggressively anti-death members of the rationality community. Was afraid people would think I didn't care about them if I didn't try to stay alive longer to be with them, etc. (I'm an ICU nurse; I have a pretty good S1 handle on how horrific a lot of life saving treatments are, and how much quality of life it's possible to lose.)

I've thought about cryonics, but haven't made a decision either way; right now, my feeling is that I don't have anything against the principle, but that it doesn't seem likely enough to work for the cost-benefit analysis to come out positive.

Comment author: Synaptic 17 January 2015 04:56:18AM 0 points [-]

Can you describe the reasons are that make you think it is not likely enough to work? Totally understandable if you can't articulate such reasons, but I'm just curious about what the benchmarks are that you might find useful in informing your probability estimate.

That is to say, it's unlikely that actual reversible cryopreservation would be possible; if it were, the technique probably wouldn't be called cryonics anymore. So, other more intermediate steps that'd you'd find informative might be good to know about.