You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

PhilipL comments on Neil deGrasse Tyson on Cryonics - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: bekkerd 09 May 2012 03:17PM

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

Comments (106)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 December 2012 11:40:23PM 0 points [-]

I might as well post this here because I don't think it's worth a new thread. Let's assume for the purposes of this argument that you have a suitably high confidence in cryonic revival at some future time. How much do you weigh the number of deaths as a direct consequence of electricity consumed keeping you frozen, against your irreplaceablity in the future society? I'm assuming that there is a non-trivial amount of electricity involved, and substituting the monetary costs of electricity per Folding@Home user per year, with the amount paid per person per year to purchase cryonics services.

Does this train of thought hold at all? If anyone has the time and knowledge to run some numbers, that would be great...

Comment author: [deleted] 14 December 2012 12:28:51AM 1 point [-]

Cryonics storage doesn't consume even a visible fraction of industrially produced liquid nitrogen. And it won't for ten-thousands of patients to come.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 December 2012 01:15:13AM 2 points [-]

Retracted after a bit of research; they just add more liquid nitrogen to counteract evaporation, and don't actually use any electricity. (I honestly didn't know this.)