Upvoted—I agree that the probability is higher if you do cryonics.
However, a lot of the framing of this discussion is that “if you choose cryonics, you are opening up Pandora’s box because of the possibility of worse-than-death outcomes.” This triggers all sort of catastrophic cognitions and causes people to have even more of an ugh field around cryonics. So I wanted to point out that worse than death outcomes are certainly still possible even if you don’t do cryonics.
I think the argument is more “if I’m going to consider beneficial but unlikely outcomes such as successful cryonic revival, then harmful but unlikely outcomes also come on to the table”.
A normal life may have a small probability of a worse-than-death scenario, but we’re not told to consider small probabilities when considering how good a normal life is.
Upvoted—I agree that the probability is higher if you do cryonics.
However, a lot of the framing of this discussion is that “if you choose cryonics, you are opening up Pandora’s box because of the possibility of worse-than-death outcomes.” This triggers all sort of catastrophic cognitions and causes people to have even more of an ugh field around cryonics. So I wanted to point out that worse than death outcomes are certainly still possible even if you don’t do cryonics.
I think the argument is more “if I’m going to consider beneficial but unlikely outcomes such as successful cryonic revival, then harmful but unlikely outcomes also come on to the table”.
A normal life may have a small probability of a worse-than-death scenario, but we’re not told to consider small probabilities when considering how good a normal life is.