If you read through Alcor’s website, you’ll see that they are careful not to provide any promises and want their clients to be well-informed about the lack of any guarantees—this points to good intentions.
How convinced do you need to be to pay $25 a month? (I’m using the $300/year quote.)
If you die soon, you won’t have paid so much. If you don’t die soon, you can consider that you’re locking into a cheaper price for an option that might get more expensive once the science/culture is more established.
In 15 years, they might discover something that makes cryonics unlikely—and you might regret your $4,500 investment. Or they might revive a cryonically frozen puppy, in which case you would have been pleased that you were ‘cryonically covered’ the whole time, and possibly pleased you funded their research. A better cryonics company might come along, you might become more informed, and you can switch.
If you like the idea of it—and you seem to—why wouldn’t you participate in this early stage even when things are uncertain?
I need to be convinced that cryonics is better than nothing, and quite frankly I’m not.
For now I will stick to maintaining my good health through proven methods, maximizing my chances to live to see future advances in medicine. That seems to be the highest probability method of living practically forever, right? (and no I’m not trying to create a false-dilemma here, I know I could do both).
If cryonics were free and somebody else did all the work, I’m assuming you wouldn’t object to being signed up. So how cheap (in terms of both effort and money) would cryonics have to be in order to make it worthwhile for you?
at the level of confidence I have in it now I would not contribute any money, maybe $10 annual donation because i think it is a good cause.
If I was very rich I might contribute a large amount of money to cryonics research although I think I would rather spend on AGI or nanotech basic science.
If you read through Alcor’s website, you’ll see that they are careful not to provide any promises and want their clients to be well-informed about the lack of any guarantees—this points to good intentions.
How convinced do you need to be to pay $25 a month? (I’m using the $300/year quote.)
If you die soon, you won’t have paid so much. If you don’t die soon, you can consider that you’re locking into a cheaper price for an option that might get more expensive once the science/culture is more established.
In 15 years, they might discover something that makes cryonics unlikely—and you might regret your $4,500 investment. Or they might revive a cryonically frozen puppy, in which case you would have been pleased that you were ‘cryonically covered’ the whole time, and possibly pleased you funded their research. A better cryonics company might come along, you might become more informed, and you can switch.
If you like the idea of it—and you seem to—why wouldn’t you participate in this early stage even when things are uncertain?
I need to be convinced that cryonics is better than nothing, and quite frankly I’m not.
For now I will stick to maintaining my good health through proven methods, maximizing my chances to live to see future advances in medicine. That seems to be the highest probability method of living practically forever, right? (and no I’m not trying to create a false-dilemma here, I know I could do both).
If cryonics were free and somebody else did all the work, I’m assuming you wouldn’t object to being signed up. So how cheap (in terms of both effort and money) would cryonics have to be in order to make it worthwhile for you?
yeah for free would be fine.
at the level of confidence I have in it now I would not contribute any money, maybe $10 annual donation because i think it is a good cause.
If I was very rich I might contribute a large amount of money to cryonics research although I think I would rather spend on AGI or nanotech basic science.