1) Why might a utilitarian seeking to do the most good consider contributing time and/or money towards cryonics (as opposed to other causes)?
This essay will concentrate on the possibility that cryonics becomes commonly accepted and used within a few decades.
I) What are the effects of common acceptance of cryonics?
1) Many people will be willing to do it
2) It will become much cheaper, even more so if brain-only conversations become widely accepted. Most people in the developed countries will be able to afford cryonis.
3) The technology will improve, and therefore become much more reliable.
4) Once cryonics has “taken off”, it will need no more altruistic funding. It will pay for itself and free up money for other charitable causes
Therefore, common, or at least wide-spread acceptance of cryonics will save hundreds of millions of lives ( or carry them over the singularity threshhold).
II) Cryonics as an alternative to end-life intensive care (see this essay by Yvain for an elaboration of the conditions under which people delay death )
For people who are terminally ill, cryonics offers the solution to the dillemma < ” I don’t want to die” vs “I don’t want to undergo a series of intensive- medical treatments” >.
Cryonics has the potential to prevent a lot of costs and suffering from end-life intensive medical care. (And free up money for other uses)
Noone really wants to do end-life-intensive care. The Person subjected to it does not really want to undergo this torture, the relatives don’t want their beloved to suffer, and burn lots of money in the process; the state does not want to blow billions and billions on it. It is just that they all feel they have no other choice.
As soon as there is an ethically accepted alternative that means less pain and lower costs, there is a strong incentive to go for it.
Cryonics offers 3 major advantages over intensive care:
(1) No suffering
(2) A good chance of survival
(3) It saves lots of money, some of which will be spent on charitable causes (once the technology is sufficiently widespread)
Traditionally, cryonics propaganda concentrates on point (2). But for many people or institutions who might be won over for cryonics, points (1) and (3) are fare more crucial.
III) What are the chances that cryonics become widely accepted in large parts of the world?
I think the chances are pretty good, given sufficient funding and competent propaganda.
There are strong interest in cryonics, both personal and institutional. They just need to be adressed properly.
It is imperative that cryonics propaganda adresses problems that people and institutions actually feel they have. (I have mentioned some examples in chapter II) .
Most people seem to have made their peace with the fact that someday in the future, they will die and go to some afterlife, so this is NOT an effective point for propaganda to adress.
Also, note that cryonics might stand better chances in countries that do not have such a strong religious right like the US.
IV) Time is essential
Every year, that cryonics are not commonly accepted, millions will die who could otherwise have been saved.
V) Leverage
Investing Time and Money into cryonics has a high leverage.
Investments, especially in propaganda, will probably snowball.
VI) Comparison to other charitable causes
There is a major difference between “traditionall” charities ( like helping people in africa) and transhumanist charities: From the perspective of mainstream society, transhumanist causes are “low-hanging poop” . Society will not consider it because it is weird, no matter the benefit.
For this reason, traditionall charities are overfunded in comparison with transhumanist ones.
Case in point: According to givewell, the most efficient charities are sufficiently funded.
VII) Conclusion
Spreading cryonics has the potential to save hundreds of millions of lives, and presents alternatives to useless suffering from life-prolonging treatments. The chances of accomplishing this goal are at least decent, there is lots of leverage, and the most efficient traditionall charities are already sufficiently funded. Therefore, cryonics has a much higher expected return on investments than its more traditionall alternatives.
just to avoid misunderstandings : “deleted” is my username. (I thought that was funny when I created it some time ago. Trivia fact: It seems new accounts cannot post for a day or so.)
Therefore, common, or at least wide-spread acceptance of cryonics will save hundreds of millions of lives
You’re missing a step here where you would argue that cryonics is likely to be successful.
According to givewell, the most efficient charities are sufficiently funded.
Kind of. You can’t cheaply keep people from dying by spreading the meme that oral rehydration therapy works for cholera anymore because that’s no longer the limiting factor, though at one point spreading the idea was one of the most effective things to do. Similarly the “eliminate smallpox” intervention was far more efficient than anything we have now, and was fully funded a while ago. The bound of what’s “efficient” keeps rising. This doesn’t mean that a GiveWell would say an additional donation to one of their top charities does little good. We’re still talking about very large benefits.
1) Why might a utilitarian seeking to do the most good consider contributing time and/or money towards cryonics (as opposed to other causes)?
This essay will concentrate on the possibility that cryonics becomes commonly accepted and used within a few decades.
I) What are the effects of common acceptance of cryonics?
1) Many people will be willing to do it
2) It will become much cheaper, even more so if brain-only conversations become widely accepted. Most people in the developed countries will be able to afford cryonis.
3) The technology will improve, and therefore become much more reliable.
4) Once cryonics has “taken off”, it will need no more altruistic funding. It will pay for itself and free up money for other charitable causes
Therefore, common, or at least wide-spread acceptance of cryonics will save hundreds of millions of lives ( or carry them over the singularity threshhold).
II) Cryonics as an alternative to end-life intensive care (see this essay by Yvain for an elaboration of the conditions under which people delay death )
For people who are terminally ill, cryonics offers the solution to the dillemma < ” I don’t want to die” vs “I don’t want to undergo a series of intensive- medical treatments” >.
Cryonics has the potential to prevent a lot of costs and suffering from end-life intensive medical care. (And free up money for other uses) Noone really wants to do end-life-intensive care. The Person subjected to it does not really want to undergo this torture, the relatives don’t want their beloved to suffer, and burn lots of money in the process; the state does not want to blow billions and billions on it. It is just that they all feel they have no other choice. As soon as there is an ethically accepted alternative that means less pain and lower costs, there is a strong incentive to go for it.
Cryonics offers 3 major advantages over intensive care:
(1) No suffering
(2) A good chance of survival
(3) It saves lots of money, some of which will be spent on charitable causes (once the technology is sufficiently widespread)
Traditionally, cryonics propaganda concentrates on point (2). But for many people or institutions who might be won over for cryonics, points (1) and (3) are fare more crucial.
III) What are the chances that cryonics become widely accepted in large parts of the world?
I think the chances are pretty good, given sufficient funding and competent propaganda. There are strong interest in cryonics, both personal and institutional. They just need to be adressed properly. It is imperative that cryonics propaganda adresses problems that people and institutions actually feel they have. (I have mentioned some examples in chapter II) . Most people seem to have made their peace with the fact that someday in the future, they will die and go to some afterlife, so this is NOT an effective point for propaganda to adress.
Also, note that cryonics might stand better chances in countries that do not have such a strong religious right like the US.
IV) Time is essential
Every year, that cryonics are not commonly accepted, millions will die who could otherwise have been saved.
V) Leverage
Investing Time and Money into cryonics has a high leverage. Investments, especially in propaganda, will probably snowball.
VI) Comparison to other charitable causes
There is a major difference between “traditionall” charities ( like helping people in africa) and transhumanist charities: From the perspective of mainstream society, transhumanist causes are “low-hanging poop” . Society will not consider it because it is weird, no matter the benefit. For this reason, traditionall charities are overfunded in comparison with transhumanist ones. Case in point: According to givewell, the most efficient charities are sufficiently funded.
VII) Conclusion
Spreading cryonics has the potential to save hundreds of millions of lives, and presents alternatives to useless suffering from life-prolonging treatments. The chances of accomplishing this goal are at least decent, there is lots of leverage, and the most efficient traditionall charities are already sufficiently funded. Therefore, cryonics has a much higher expected return on investments than its more traditionall alternatives.
just to avoid misunderstandings : “deleted” is my username. (I thought that was funny when I created it some time ago. Trivia fact: It seems new accounts cannot post for a day or so.)
You’re missing a step here where you would argue that cryonics is likely to be successful.
Kind of. You can’t cheaply keep people from dying by spreading the meme that oral rehydration therapy works for cholera anymore because that’s no longer the limiting factor, though at one point spreading the idea was one of the most effective things to do. Similarly the “eliminate smallpox” intervention was far more efficient than anything we have now, and was fully funded a while ago. The bound of what’s “efficient” keeps rising. This doesn’t mean that a GiveWell would say an additional donation to one of their top charities does little good. We’re still talking about very large benefits.
(This would also be easier to read as an essay if you expanded your outline into prose.)