“Especially because that there are few negative consequences if the bodies are left to rot”
From what I understand, a trust fund is used to pay to keep them cryopreserved. If you leave them to rot, you don’t get paid anymore. I’d consider a company suddenly going bankrupt a pretty big negative consequence.
I’d like to add that cryonics companies far from the time when people can be revived are probably run and founded by true believers who will have an immense emotional stake in it. They will almost certainly select successors with this quality and so there’s an extra layer of insurance from pride.
Hm interesting—how would the trustfund exactly work?
Yeah—I’d be scared of bankruptcy too.
Now that I think about it though, here’s a possibly motivational factor: If the company fails to keep some bodies frozen, then confidence in it will drastically drop (especially for issues like this) and new patients will really stop paying for it. The influx of new patients is one factor that might help pay for it.
The economics might be scalable if only hundreds or thousands of bodies are frozen. Which will probably end up being the case. But significantly more than that—then you have a lot of workers to maintain the bodies—workers who aren’t producing anything else of tangible value to anyone who’s currently alive.
I’m not an economics major, so I don’t know everything about it. I’m just trying to learn the field through some study and trial-and-error. That being said, I do question the modern-day assumptions of economics just as Robin Hanson questions them. I detailed my thoughts here: http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-understudied-areas-of-Economics/answer/Alex-K-Chen . The major thing is that something like this has never been done before, so I think we might know a lot less than we think with respect to the sustainability of this.
If the company fails to keep some bodies frozen, then confidence in it will drastically drop (especially for issues like this) and new patients will really stop paying for it. The influx of new patients is one factor that might help pay for it.
If the maintenance of existing frozen patients depends on an increasing influx of new patients, then what you have there is a pyramid scheme. If, on the other hand, you can expect to benefit from economics of scale, then the number of new patients needed over time to keep the business alive may stabilize, in which case it’s not a pyramid.
Something else to consider: Once the revival technology works, you’re not going to revive all the frozen people at once. You’re only going to revive those whose underlying medical problem can be fixed. And the frozen heads pretty much have to wait for upload tech.
Once you start reviving, you now have a small population of extremely grateful people. But, by the above assumption, you’re going to have fewer people getting frozen because more underlying medical problems can just be fixed without freezing and waiting.
Something else to consider: Once the revival technology works, you’re not going to revive all the frozen people at once. You’re only going to revive those whose underlying medical problem can be fixed. And the frozen heads pretty much have to wait for upload tech.
It is true that if successful cryonics will function on a roughly first-in, last out arrangement (since the preservation technology improves over time). And yes, you aren’t going to be able to revive everyone at once. However, the head only preservation does not need to wait for uploads. If we have the tech level to revive people one may be able to construct robot or cloned bodies to attach the head to. Moreover, since heads are smaller than full bodies one can more carefully reduce the temperature and make sure that the cryopreservants have infused everywhere. In theory, this should in some respects make there be less brain damage to head only preservation. If so, neuros may be revived early.
If the maintenance of existing frozen patients depends on an increasing influx of new patients
It’s not that they need an increasing number of patients to keep going. It’s just that without new patients, business will stagnate. They’d do anything to keep growing.
Also, once they know they can revive people, it will be clear that these things failing will mean people dying. At this point, people will do anything to keep them from failing.
“Especially because that there are few negative consequences if the bodies are left to rot”
From what I understand, a trust fund is used to pay to keep them cryopreserved. If you leave them to rot, you don’t get paid anymore. I’d consider a company suddenly going bankrupt a pretty big negative consequence.
I’d like to add that cryonics companies far from the time when people can be revived are probably run and founded by true believers who will have an immense emotional stake in it. They will almost certainly select successors with this quality and so there’s an extra layer of insurance from pride.
Hm interesting—how would the trustfund exactly work?
Yeah—I’d be scared of bankruptcy too.
Now that I think about it though, here’s a possibly motivational factor: If the company fails to keep some bodies frozen, then confidence in it will drastically drop (especially for issues like this) and new patients will really stop paying for it. The influx of new patients is one factor that might help pay for it.
The economics might be scalable if only hundreds or thousands of bodies are frozen. Which will probably end up being the case. But significantly more than that—then you have a lot of workers to maintain the bodies—workers who aren’t producing anything else of tangible value to anyone who’s currently alive.
I’m not an economics major, so I don’t know everything about it. I’m just trying to learn the field through some study and trial-and-error. That being said, I do question the modern-day assumptions of economics just as Robin Hanson questions them. I detailed my thoughts here: http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-understudied-areas-of-Economics/answer/Alex-K-Chen . The major thing is that something like this has never been done before, so I think we might know a lot less than we think with respect to the sustainability of this.
If the maintenance of existing frozen patients depends on an increasing influx of new patients, then what you have there is a pyramid scheme. If, on the other hand, you can expect to benefit from economics of scale, then the number of new patients needed over time to keep the business alive may stabilize, in which case it’s not a pyramid.
Something else to consider: Once the revival technology works, you’re not going to revive all the frozen people at once. You’re only going to revive those whose underlying medical problem can be fixed. And the frozen heads pretty much have to wait for upload tech.
Once you start reviving, you now have a small population of extremely grateful people. But, by the above assumption, you’re going to have fewer people getting frozen because more underlying medical problems can just be fixed without freezing and waiting.
It is true that if successful cryonics will function on a roughly first-in, last out arrangement (since the preservation technology improves over time). And yes, you aren’t going to be able to revive everyone at once. However, the head only preservation does not need to wait for uploads. If we have the tech level to revive people one may be able to construct robot or cloned bodies to attach the head to. Moreover, since heads are smaller than full bodies one can more carefully reduce the temperature and make sure that the cryopreservants have infused everywhere. In theory, this should in some respects make there be less brain damage to head only preservation. If so, neuros may be revived early.
It’s not that they need an increasing number of patients to keep going. It’s just that without new patients, business will stagnate. They’d do anything to keep growing.
Also, once they know they can revive people, it will be clear that these things failing will mean people dying. At this point, people will do anything to keep them from failing.