I agree with your point that a person who does not trust presently available cryonics should still invest in research. However, it does not necessarily follow that the optimal expenditure of a given dollar from any source is on research. A person may have a high enough estimate of the probability of it working adequately for it to be more worthwhile to purchase an existing cryopreservation than donate to research.
Or they may think research has hit a point of diminishing returns which cannot progress further until mature nanotech is available. Alternately, cryonics could be rendered very inexpensive (by economies of scale, e.g.) such that more value is gained by each additional cryopreservation than by equivalent donations to research. A philanthropist such as Larry King might, after all, consider offering money to cover the freezing of millions of low-income individuals in high population countries. The simple act of doing it millions of times under a variety of conditions could cause drastic increases in quality.
Furthermore, note that research itself can be supported by sale of the results rather than donation alone—e.g. from what I understand cryonics is a large part of the market for the M-22 cryoprotectant, something which represents a large portion of the cost of an Alcor cryopreservation. If it is simply easier to get people to spend money on cryopreservations than research, it could be a more effective source of revenue. If there is competition amongst cryonics companies (or strong internal pressure) to provide the best possible service, a thriving market for cryonics could be the quickest route to developing an adequate product.
Another thing to take into account is that each additional cryopreservation means putting more money into a trust fund to keep things going, and to eventually fund reanimation research. Since reanimation research will tend to involve brain repairs, this effectively represents a delayed, interest-compounded donation towards brain trauma reversal science—perhaps scanning will be what works, but we can expect other areas such as direct repair strategies to be investigated. So there is a certain amount of additional value that has nothing to do with cryonics itself. (Economists may be able to comment on the value of long-term trusts, which I understand to be stabilizing for the economy as it concentrates money in low-risk ventures.)
The only examples of cryonics companies having to let their patients thaw that I am aware of involved the flawed pay-as-you-go business model, which is no longer employed by cryonics companies. Instead of collecting monthly payments from relatives as the practice was, advance payment of a certain minimum is required, which is placed in a trust fund to earn interest over time and thus cover the patient’s expenses indefinitely. No cryonics company using this business model has yet failed catastrophically.
Thank you for taking the time to give me such a well thought out response. Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply in turn. I’d be interested in hearing your further response.
Actually my point was not a person who does not trust presently available cryonics should still invest in research, but that cryonic preservation itself is not trustworthy at the current time and therefore investing in research is a better alternative. Though if someone does have a high enough estimation of the likelihood of it working adequately I’d love to find out why so I can update my own estimation.
You’re right though, they may think the research has reached a point of diminishing returns untill the advent of mature nanotechnology but that begs the question why not invest in nanotechnology instead?
Or even better invest in research into the preservation of individual organs? Given the high need for organ transplants, the ability to put them “on ice” would provide invaluable in the saving of lives. Moreover in the increased number of transplants would lead to an increase in income for hospitals and pharmaceutical companies selling anti-rejection drugs. Given that the most likely scenario is that we’ll be able to successfully preserve and revive kidneys before we can do the same for (as an example) lungs that money would end up being re-invested in organ preservation research.
This would have a higher expected return as a thriving market in organ-transplant surgery and immunosuppressant’s is much more likely than developing a thriving market in whole body cryopreservation. There are already more people added to the national waiting list for organ donations each month (about 4,100) , four times that of Alcor’s membership over four decades (ref: http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/membershipstats.html).
And while the money of those buying cryopreservation may be going into a trust fund, the money will only be useful for regenerative research in the long term. Meanwhile the average cost of immunosuppressant’s is about $1000 per month (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592494/) for the lifetime of the patient, that along with the larger market results in a far greater spending power for research.
If Larry King were to pay for the freezing of millions of low-income individuals in high population countries I’m not sure it could be considered a philanthropic act. Cryonic preservation is for all intents and purposes still experimental, in many ways equivalent to a drug trial and as such should be governed by the same guidelines. Namely the Nuremberg code (http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html), and the freezing of low-income individuals is highly likely to violate the first clause of that code. As such individuals are highly likely to have little or no education and as a result won’t have enough information/training to make an informed decision, and the amount of education required would bump up the cost per individual considerably.
While I don’t agree with religious beliefs about burial (or cremation for that matter) it’s a common belief held that burial must be done is a specific way in order to gain entry to heaven (holy ground, intact body etc.) It would be unfair to portray as a sure fire way of preserving their life when if it were to fail, their burial wishes wouldn’t be met.
I can’t help but agree with you on the matter of cryonics companies having a far more stable business model than the previous pay-as-you-go sort. However it seems to me at least this arrangement is far from indefinite, the longer you wait the more likely something like WW3 is to break out. In fact the longer the wait the less likely cryogenics companies are to honour their contract (200 years from now, not many people will care that much about popsicles from the early 21st century. In 300 years even less people will, the longer it takes the easier it will be to justify the disposal of cryogenically preserved individuals, more so if during that time no major advancements are made.)
I agree with your point that a person who does not trust presently available cryonics should still invest in research. However, it does not necessarily follow that the optimal expenditure of a given dollar from any source is on research. A person may have a high enough estimate of the probability of it working adequately for it to be more worthwhile to purchase an existing cryopreservation than donate to research.
Or they may think research has hit a point of diminishing returns which cannot progress further until mature nanotech is available. Alternately, cryonics could be rendered very inexpensive (by economies of scale, e.g.) such that more value is gained by each additional cryopreservation than by equivalent donations to research. A philanthropist such as Larry King might, after all, consider offering money to cover the freezing of millions of low-income individuals in high population countries. The simple act of doing it millions of times under a variety of conditions could cause drastic increases in quality.
Furthermore, note that research itself can be supported by sale of the results rather than donation alone—e.g. from what I understand cryonics is a large part of the market for the M-22 cryoprotectant, something which represents a large portion of the cost of an Alcor cryopreservation. If it is simply easier to get people to spend money on cryopreservations than research, it could be a more effective source of revenue. If there is competition amongst cryonics companies (or strong internal pressure) to provide the best possible service, a thriving market for cryonics could be the quickest route to developing an adequate product.
Another thing to take into account is that each additional cryopreservation means putting more money into a trust fund to keep things going, and to eventually fund reanimation research. Since reanimation research will tend to involve brain repairs, this effectively represents a delayed, interest-compounded donation towards brain trauma reversal science—perhaps scanning will be what works, but we can expect other areas such as direct repair strategies to be investigated. So there is a certain amount of additional value that has nothing to do with cryonics itself. (Economists may be able to comment on the value of long-term trusts, which I understand to be stabilizing for the economy as it concentrates money in low-risk ventures.)
The only examples of cryonics companies having to let their patients thaw that I am aware of involved the flawed pay-as-you-go business model, which is no longer employed by cryonics companies. Instead of collecting monthly payments from relatives as the practice was, advance payment of a certain minimum is required, which is placed in a trust fund to earn interest over time and thus cover the patient’s expenses indefinitely. No cryonics company using this business model has yet failed catastrophically.
Thank you for taking the time to give me such a well thought out response. Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply in turn. I’d be interested in hearing your further response.
Actually my point was not a person who does not trust presently available cryonics should still invest in research, but that cryonic preservation itself is not trustworthy at the current time and therefore investing in research is a better alternative. Though if someone does have a high enough estimation of the likelihood of it working adequately I’d love to find out why so I can update my own estimation.
You’re right though, they may think the research has reached a point of diminishing returns untill the advent of mature nanotechnology but that begs the question why not invest in nanotechnology instead?
Or even better invest in research into the preservation of individual organs? Given the high need for organ transplants, the ability to put them “on ice” would provide invaluable in the saving of lives. Moreover in the increased number of transplants would lead to an increase in income for hospitals and pharmaceutical companies selling anti-rejection drugs. Given that the most likely scenario is that we’ll be able to successfully preserve and revive kidneys before we can do the same for (as an example) lungs that money would end up being re-invested in organ preservation research.
This would have a higher expected return as a thriving market in organ-transplant surgery and immunosuppressant’s is much more likely than developing a thriving market in whole body cryopreservation. There are already more people added to the national waiting list for organ donations each month (about 4,100) , four times that of Alcor’s membership over four decades (ref: http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/membershipstats.html).
And while the money of those buying cryopreservation may be going into a trust fund, the money will only be useful for regenerative research in the long term. Meanwhile the average cost of immunosuppressant’s is about $1000 per month (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592494/) for the lifetime of the patient, that along with the larger market results in a far greater spending power for research.
If Larry King were to pay for the freezing of millions of low-income individuals in high population countries I’m not sure it could be considered a philanthropic act. Cryonic preservation is for all intents and purposes still experimental, in many ways equivalent to a drug trial and as such should be governed by the same guidelines. Namely the Nuremberg code (http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html), and the freezing of low-income individuals is highly likely to violate the first clause of that code. As such individuals are highly likely to have little or no education and as a result won’t have enough information/training to make an informed decision, and the amount of education required would bump up the cost per individual considerably.
While I don’t agree with religious beliefs about burial (or cremation for that matter) it’s a common belief held that burial must be done is a specific way in order to gain entry to heaven (holy ground, intact body etc.) It would be unfair to portray as a sure fire way of preserving their life when if it were to fail, their burial wishes wouldn’t be met.
I can’t help but agree with you on the matter of cryonics companies having a far more stable business model than the previous pay-as-you-go sort. However it seems to me at least this arrangement is far from indefinite, the longer you wait the more likely something like WW3 is to break out. In fact the longer the wait the less likely cryogenics companies are to honour their contract (200 years from now, not many people will care that much about popsicles from the early 21st century. In 300 years even less people will, the longer it takes the easier it will be to justify the disposal of cryogenically preserved individuals, more so if during that time no major advancements are made.)