There’s a much better, simpler reason to reject cryonics: it isn’t proven. There might be some good signs and indications, but it’s still rather murky in there. That being said, it’s rather clear from prior discussion that most people in this forum believe that it will work. I find it slightly absurd, to be honest. You can talk a lot about uncertainties and supporting evidence and burden of proof and so on, but the simple fact remains the same. There is no proof cryonics will work, either right now, 20, or 50 years in the future. I hate to sound so cynical, I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade, but I’m just stating the facts.
Bear in mind they don’t just have to prove it will work. They also need to show you can be uploaded, reverse-aged, or whatever else that comes next. (Now awaiting hoards of flabbergasted replies and accusations.)
There’s a much better, simpler reason to reject cryonics: it isn’t proven. There might be some good signs and indications, but it’s still rather murky in there.
This is a very bad argument. First, all claims are probabilistic, so it isn’t even clear what you mean by proof. Second of all, I could under the exact same logic say that one shouldn’t try anything that involves technology that doesn’t exist yet because we don’t know if it will actually work. So the argument has to fail.
There’s a much better, simpler reason to reject cryonics: it isn’t proven.
That’s a widely acknowledged fact. And, if you make that your actual reason for rejecting cryonics, there are some implications that follow from that: for instance, that we should be investing massively more in research aiming to provide proof than we currently are.
The arguments we tend to hear are more along the lines of “it’s not proven, it’s an expensive eccentricity, it’s morally wrong, and besides even if it were proved to work I don’t believe I’d wake up as me so I wouldn’t want it”.
I have no idea whether it will work, but right now, the only alternative is death. I actually think it’s unlikely that people preserved now will ever be revived, more for social and economic reasons than technical ones.
In as much as I’m for cryopreservation (but am having some trouble finding a way to do it in Norway—well, I’ll figure something out), I’ve also decided to be the kind of person who would, if still alive once reviving them becomes technically possible, pay for reviving as many as I can afford.
I tend to assume that other cryopreservationists think the same way. This means the chance of being revived, assuming nobody else wants to pay for it (including a possible FAI), is related to the proportion of cryopreservationists who are still alive divided by the cost of reviving someone, as a portion of their average income at the time.
Once the infrastructure and technology for revival is established, it won’t be very costly. The economic problem is getting that infrastructure and technology established in the first place.
I would guess you’re far more altruistic than most people. Really, as many as you can afford?
I’m precommiting myself to reviving others, if I have the opportunity; on the assumption that others do the same, this means the marginal benefit to me from signing up for cryopreservation goes up.
And, admittedly, I expect to have a considerable amount of disposable income. “As many as I can afford” means “While maintaining a reasonable standard of living”, but “reasonable” is relative; by deliberately not increasing it too much from what I’m used to as a student, I can get more slack without really losing utilons.
It helps that my hobbies are, by and large, very cheap. Hiking and such. ;)
There’s a much better, simpler reason to reject cryonics: it isn’t proven. There might be some good signs and indications, but it’s still rather murky in there. That being said, it’s rather clear from prior discussion that most people in this forum believe that it will work. I find it slightly absurd, to be honest. You can talk a lot about uncertainties and supporting evidence and burden of proof and so on, but the simple fact remains the same. There is no proof cryonics will work, either right now, 20, or 50 years in the future. I hate to sound so cynical, I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade, but I’m just stating the facts.
Bear in mind they don’t just have to prove it will work. They also need to show you can be uploaded, reverse-aged, or whatever else that comes next. (Now awaiting hoards of flabbergasted replies and accusations.)
You’re entitled to arguments, but not that particular proof.
This is a very bad argument. First, all claims are probabilistic, so it isn’t even clear what you mean by proof. Second of all, I could under the exact same logic say that one shouldn’t try anything that involves technology that doesn’t exist yet because we don’t know if it will actually work. So the argument has to fail.
That’s a widely acknowledged fact. And, if you make that your actual reason for rejecting cryonics, there are some implications that follow from that: for instance, that we should be investing massively more in research aiming to provide proof than we currently are.
The arguments we tend to hear are more along the lines of “it’s not proven, it’s an expensive eccentricity, it’s morally wrong, and besides even if it were proved to work I don’t believe I’d wake up as me so I wouldn’t want it”.
I have no idea whether it will work, but right now, the only alternative is death. I actually think it’s unlikely that people preserved now will ever be revived, more for social and economic reasons than technical ones.
How much do you believe it would cost?
In as much as I’m for cryopreservation (but am having some trouble finding a way to do it in Norway—well, I’ll figure something out), I’ve also decided to be the kind of person who would, if still alive once reviving them becomes technically possible, pay for reviving as many as I can afford.
I tend to assume that other cryopreservationists think the same way. This means the chance of being revived, assuming nobody else wants to pay for it (including a possible FAI), is related to the proportion of cryopreservationists who are still alive divided by the cost of reviving someone, as a portion of their average income at the time.
Thus, I wonder—how costly will it be?
Once the infrastructure and technology for revival is established, it won’t be very costly. The economic problem is getting that infrastructure and technology established in the first place.
I would guess you’re far more altruistic than most people. Really, as many as you can afford?
It’s not altruism, it’s selfishness.
I’m precommiting myself to reviving others, if I have the opportunity; on the assumption that others do the same, this means the marginal benefit to me from signing up for cryopreservation goes up.
And, admittedly, I expect to have a considerable amount of disposable income. “As many as I can afford” means “While maintaining a reasonable standard of living”, but “reasonable” is relative; by deliberately not increasing it too much from what I’m used to as a student, I can get more slack without really losing utilons.
It helps that my hobbies are, by and large, very cheap. Hiking and such. ;)