Hi, I’m pretty new here too. I hope I’m not repeating an old argument, but suspect I am; feel free to answer with a pointer instead of a direct rebuttal.
I’m surprised that no-one’s mentioned the cost of cryonics in relation to the reduction in net human suffering that could come from spending the money on poverty relief instead. For (say) USD $50k, I could save around 100 lives ($500/life is a current rough estimate at lifesaving aid for people in extreme poverty), or could dramatically increase the quality of life of 1000 people (for example, cataract operations to restore sight to a blind person are around $50).
How can we say it’s moral to value such a long shot at elongating my own life as being worth more than 100-1000 lives of other humans who happened to do worse in the birth wealth lottery than I did?
This is also an argument against going to movies, buying coffee, owning a car, or having a child. In fact, this is an argument against doing anything beyond living at the absolute minimum threshold of life, while donating the rest of your income to charity.
How can you say it’s moral to value your own comfort as being worth more than 100-1000 other humans? They just did worse at the birth lottery, right?
It’s not really an argument against those other things, although I do indeed try to avoid some luxuries, or to match the amount I spend on them with a donation to an effective aid organization.
What I think you’ve missed is that many of the items you mention are essential for me to continue having and being motivated in a job that pays me well—well enough to make donations to aid organizations that accomplish far more than I could if I just took a plane to a place of extreme poverty and attempted to help using my own skills directly.
If there’s a better way to help alleviate poverty than donating a percentage of my developed-world salary to effective charities every year, I haven’t found it yet.
Ah, I see. So when you spend money on yourself, it’s just to motivate yourself for more charitable labor. But when those weird cryonauts spend money on themselves, they’re being selfish!
Ah, I see. So when you spend money on yourself, it’s just to motivate yourself for more charitable labor. But when those weird cryonauts spend money on themselves, they’re being selfish!
No, I’m arguing that it would be selfish for me to spend money on myself, if that money was on cryonics, where selfishness is defined as (a) spending an amount of money that could relieve a great amount of suffering, (b) on something that doesn’t relate to retaining my ability to get a paycheck.
One weakness in this argument is that there could be a person who is so fearful of death that they can’t live effectively without the comfort that signing up for cryonics gives them. In that circumstance, I couldn’t use this criticism.
Cryonics is comparable to CPR or other emergency medical care, in that it gives you extra life after you might otherwise die. Of course it’s selfish, in the sense that you’re taking care of yourself first, to spend money on your medical care, but cryonics does relate to your ability to get a paycheck (after your revival).
To be consistent, are you reducing your medical expenses in other ways?
Cryonics is comparable to CPR or other emergency medical care
.. at a probability of (for the sake of argument) one in a million.
Do I participate in other examples of medical care that might save my life with probability one in a million (even if they don’t cost any money)? No, not that I can think of.
That’s true. I didn’t spend my own money on them (I grew up in the UK), and they didn’t cost very much in comparison, but I agree that it’s a good example of a medical long shot.
Yep, the cost and especially the administrative hassles are, in comparison to the probability considerations, closer to the true reason I (for instance) am not signed up yet, in spite of seeing it as my best shot of insuring long life.
To be fair, vaccination is also a long shot in terms of frequency, but definitely proven to work with close to certainty on any given patient. Cryonics is a long shot intrisically.
But it might not be if more was invested in researching it, and more might be invested if cryonics was already used on a precautionary basis in situations where it would also save money (e.g. death row inmates and terminal patients) and risk nothing of significance (since no better outcome than death can be expected).
In that sense it seems obviously rational to advocate cryonics as a method of assisted suicide, and only the “weirdness factor”, religious-moralistic hangups and legislative inertia can explain the reluctance to adopt it more broadly.
what are morals? I have preferences. sometimes they coincide with other people’s preferences and sometimes they conflict. when they conflict In socially unacceptable ways I seek ways to hide or downplay them.
One can expect to live a life at least 100-1000 times longer than those other poor people, or live a life that has at least 100-1000 times as much positive utility, as well as the points in the other comments.
Although this argument is a decent one for some people, it’s much more often the product of motivated cognition than carefully looking at the issues, so I did not include it in the post.
One can expect to live a life at least 100-1000 times longer than those other poor people
.. when you say “can expect to”, what do you mean? Do you mean “it is extremely likely that..”? That’s the problem. If it was a sure deal, it would be logical to spend the money on it—but in fact it’s extremely uncertain, whereas the $50 being asked for by a group like Aravind Eye Hospital to directly fund a cataract operation is (close to) relieving significant suffering with a probability of 1.
Hi, I’m pretty new here too. I hope I’m not repeating an old argument, but suspect I am; feel free to answer with a pointer instead of a direct rebuttal.
I’m surprised that no-one’s mentioned the cost of cryonics in relation to the reduction in net human suffering that could come from spending the money on poverty relief instead. For (say) USD $50k, I could save around 100 lives ($500/life is a current rough estimate at lifesaving aid for people in extreme poverty), or could dramatically increase the quality of life of 1000 people (for example, cataract operations to restore sight to a blind person are around $50).
How can we say it’s moral to value such a long shot at elongating my own life as being worth more than 100-1000 lives of other humans who happened to do worse in the birth wealth lottery than I did?
This is also an argument against going to movies, buying coffee, owning a car, or having a child. In fact, this is an argument against doing anything beyond living at the absolute minimum threshold of life, while donating the rest of your income to charity.
How can you say it’s moral to value your own comfort as being worth more than 100-1000 other humans? They just did worse at the birth lottery, right?
It’s not really an argument against those other things, although I do indeed try to avoid some luxuries, or to match the amount I spend on them with a donation to an effective aid organization.
What I think you’ve missed is that many of the items you mention are essential for me to continue having and being motivated in a job that pays me well—well enough to make donations to aid organizations that accomplish far more than I could if I just took a plane to a place of extreme poverty and attempted to help using my own skills directly.
If there’s a better way to help alleviate poverty than donating a percentage of my developed-world salary to effective charities every year, I haven’t found it yet.
Ah, I see. So when you spend money on yourself, it’s just to motivate yourself for more charitable labor. But when those weird cryonauts spend money on themselves, they’re being selfish!
How wonderful to be you.
No, I’m arguing that it would be selfish for me to spend money on myself, if that money was on cryonics, where selfishness is defined as (a) spending an amount of money that could relieve a great amount of suffering, (b) on something that doesn’t relate to retaining my ability to get a paycheck.
One weakness in this argument is that there could be a person who is so fearful of death that they can’t live effectively without the comfort that signing up for cryonics gives them. In that circumstance, I couldn’t use this criticism.
Cryonics is comparable to CPR or other emergency medical care, in that it gives you extra life after you might otherwise die. Of course it’s selfish, in the sense that you’re taking care of yourself first, to spend money on your medical care, but cryonics does relate to your ability to get a paycheck (after your revival).
To be consistent, are you reducing your medical expenses in other ways?
.. at a probability of (for the sake of argument) one in a million.
Do I participate in other examples of medical care that might save my life with probability one in a million (even if they don’t cost any money)? No, not that I can think of.
Did you ever get any vaccination shots? Some of these are for diseases that have become quite rare.
That’s true. I didn’t spend my own money on them (I grew up in the UK), and they didn’t cost very much in comparison, but I agree that it’s a good example of a medical long shot.
Yep, the cost and especially the administrative hassles are, in comparison to the probability considerations, closer to the true reason I (for instance) am not signed up yet, in spite of seeing it as my best shot of insuring long life.
To be fair, vaccination is also a long shot in terms of frequency, but definitely proven to work with close to certainty on any given patient. Cryonics is a long shot intrisically.
But it might not be if more was invested in researching it, and more might be invested if cryonics was already used on a precautionary basis in situations where it would also save money (e.g. death row inmates and terminal patients) and risk nothing of significance (since no better outcome than death can be expected).
In that sense it seems obviously rational to advocate cryonics as a method of assisted suicide, and only the “weirdness factor”, religious-moralistic hangups and legislative inertia can explain the reluctance to adopt it more broadly.
like this: I value my subjective experience more than even hundreds of thousands of other similar-but-not-me subjective experiences.
additionally, your argument applies to generic goods you choose over saving people, not just cryonics.
Well, sure, but I asked how it could be moral, not how you can evade the question by deciding that you don’t have any responsibilities to anyone.
what are morals? I have preferences. sometimes they coincide with other people’s preferences and sometimes they conflict. when they conflict In socially unacceptable ways I seek ways to hide or downplay them.
One can expect to live a life at least 100-1000 times longer than those other poor people, or live a life that has at least 100-1000 times as much positive utility, as well as the points in the other comments.
Although this argument is a decent one for some people, it’s much more often the product of motivated cognition than carefully looking at the issues, so I did not include it in the post.
Thanks for the reply.
.. when you say “can expect to”, what do you mean? Do you mean “it is extremely likely that..”? That’s the problem. If it was a sure deal, it would be logical to spend the money on it—but in fact it’s extremely uncertain, whereas the $50 being asked for by a group like Aravind Eye Hospital to directly fund a cataract operation is (close to) relieving significant suffering with a probability of 1.