I strongly support anti-aging research. I’m not clear on what your criticism is of cryonics. Perhaps I missed where you explained why you think that cryonics will not work? For example, where in the Drake equation does your probability differ from Steve Harris’s or Mike Perry’s?
Also, you point out the large number of organizations and companies involved in aging research. Surely the fact that there are way fewer in cryonics means that it is has merit from an underfunding perspective?
The estimates of Harris and Perry that cryonics doesn’t work range from 23% to 99.8% - which are potentially quite high (as I phrased it in the OP). Cryonics might work, but there’s a potentially very good chance that it doesn’t.
I agree that cryonics is underfunded even more than aging research. It seems likely that an increase in funding to cryonics could increase the probability that cryonics works, by improving the chance of success of the following variables:
Favorable conditions for suspension
Suspension preserves enough information
Mishap-free storage
Nanotechnology is perfected
Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”
At the very least, it would help to reduce the uncertainty regarding some of the parameters, providing as a clearer picture of the feasibility of cryonics.
However, several of the parameters would be likely to be unaffected by increased funding:
Materialism is correct
Identity encoded in structure
Sufficient social stability
Cryonics is continuously legal
Nanotechnology is physically possible
Cryonic revival is permitted
Ideally, both cryonics and anti-aging would receive more funding.
The intention of my post was not to encourage reductions in funding into cryonics; rather, to increase awareness among LessWrongers readers about anti-aging.
However, several of the parameters would be likely to be unaffected by increased funding:
Cryonics is continuously legal
Cryonic revival is permitted
On the contrary, I very much expect that more funding would help with these factors. The success of cryonics is limited by sociopolitical factors, and the more people who have buy-in, the more likely people are to be protected when in long-term cryopreservation.
The intention of my post was not to encourage reductions in funding into cryonics; rather, to increase awareness among LessWrongers readers about anti-aging.
On the contrary, I very much expect that more funding would help with these factors. The success of cryonics is limited by sociopolitical factors, and the more people who have buy-in, the more likely people are to be protected when in long-term cryopreservation.
Yeah, that seems likely. Certainly ‘the social problem’ (which combines several of the parameters) in general will reduce in likelihood the more funding cryonics receives.
I strongly support anti-aging research. I’m not clear on what your criticism is of cryonics. Perhaps I missed where you explained why you think that cryonics will not work? For example, where in the Drake equation does your probability differ from Steve Harris’s or Mike Perry’s?
Also, you point out the large number of organizations and companies involved in aging research. Surely the fact that there are way fewer in cryonics means that it is has merit from an underfunding perspective?
The estimates of Harris and Perry that cryonics doesn’t work range from 23% to 99.8% - which are potentially quite high (as I phrased it in the OP). Cryonics might work, but there’s a potentially very good chance that it doesn’t.
I agree that cryonics is underfunded even more than aging research. It seems likely that an increase in funding to cryonics could increase the probability that cryonics works, by improving the chance of success of the following variables:
Favorable conditions for suspension
Suspension preserves enough information
Mishap-free storage
Nanotechnology is perfected
Cryonic revival is “cheap enough”
At the very least, it would help to reduce the uncertainty regarding some of the parameters, providing as a clearer picture of the feasibility of cryonics.
However, several of the parameters would be likely to be unaffected by increased funding:
Materialism is correct
Identity encoded in structure
Sufficient social stability
Cryonics is continuously legal
Nanotechnology is physically possible
Cryonic revival is permitted
Ideally, both cryonics and anti-aging would receive more funding.
The intention of my post was not to encourage reductions in funding into cryonics; rather, to increase awareness among LessWrongers readers about anti-aging.
On the contrary, I very much expect that more funding would help with these factors. The success of cryonics is limited by sociopolitical factors, and the more people who have buy-in, the more likely people are to be protected when in long-term cryopreservation.
This is an admirable goal. =)
Yeah, that seems likely. Certainly ‘the social problem’ (which combines several of the parameters) in general will reduce in likelihood the more funding cryonics receives.