I don’t think it’s been asked before on Less Wrong, and it’s an interesting question.
It depends on how much you value not dying. If you value it very strongly, the risk of sudden, terminal, but not immediately fatal injuries or illnesses, as mentioned by paper-machine, might be unacceptable to you, and would point toward joining Alcor sooner rather than later.
The marginal increase your support would add to the probability of Alcor surviving as an institution might also matter to you selfishly, since this would increase the probability that there will exist a stronger Alcor when you are older and will likely need it more than you do now.
Additionally, while it’s true that it’s unlikely that Alcor would reach you in time if you were to die suddenly, compare this risk to the chance of your survival if alternately you don’t join Alcor soon enough, and, after your hypothetical fatal car crash, you end up rotting in the ground.
And hey, if you really want selfish reasons: signing up for cryonics is high-status in certain subcultures, including this one.
There are also altruistic reasons to join Alcor, but that’s a separate issue.
Thank you for your response; I suppose one would need to estimate the probability of dying in such a way that having previously joined Alcor would make a difference.
Perusing Ben Best’s web site and using some common sense, it seems that the most likely causes of death for a reasonably healthy middle aged man are cancer, stroke, heart attack, accident, suicide, and homicide. We need to estimate the probability of sudden serious loss of faculties followed by death.
It seems that for cancer, that probability is extremely small. For stroke, heart attack, and accidents, one could look it up but just guesstimating a number based on general observations, I would guess roughly 10 to 15 percent. Suicide and homicide are special cases—I imagine that in those cases I would be autopsied so there would be much less chance of cryopreservation even if I had already joined Alcor.
Of course even if you pre-joined Alcor, there is still a decent chance that for whatever reason they would not be able to preserve you after, for example, a fatal accident which killed you a few days later.
So all told, my rough estimate is that the improvement in my chances of being cryopreserved upon death if I joined Alcor now as opposed to taking a wait and see approach is 5% at best.
That does sound about right, but with two potential caveats: one is that individual circumstances might also matter in these calculations. For example, my risk of dying in a car accident is much lowered by not driving and only rarely riding in cars. However, my risk of dying of heart disease is raised by a strong family history.
There may also be financial considerations. Cancer almost certainly and often heart disease and stroke take time to kill. If you were paying for cryonics out-of-pocket, this wouldn’t matter, but if you were paying with life insurance the cost of the policy would go up, perhaps dramatically, if you were to wait until the onset of serious illness to make your arrangements, as life insurance companies are not fond of pre-existing condtions. It might be worth noting that age alone also increases the cost of life insurance.
That being said, it’s also fair to say that even a successful cryopreservation has a (roughly) 10-20% chance of preserving your life, taking most factors into account.
So again, the key here is determining how strongly you value your continued existence. If you could come up with a roughly estimated monetary value of your life, taking the probability of radical life extension into account, that may clarify matters considerably. There at values at which that (roughly) 5% chance is too little, or close to the line, or plenty sufficient, or way more than sufficient; it’s quite a spectrum.
ne is that individual circumstances might also matter in these calculations. For example, my risk of dying in a car accident is much lowered by not driving and only rarely riding in cars
Yes I totally agree. Similarly your chances of being murdered are probably a lot lower than the average if you live in an affluent neighborhood and have a spouse who has never assaulted you.
Suicide is an interesting issue—I would like to think that my chances of committing suicide are far lower than average but painful experience has taught me that it’s very easy to be overconfident in predicting one’s own actions.
There may also be financial considerations. Cancer almost certainly and often heart disease and stroke take time to kill. If you were paying for cryonics out-of-pocket, this wouldn’t matter, but if you were paying with life insurance the cost of the policy would go up, perhaps dramatically, if you were to wait until the onset of serious illness to make your arrangements, as life insurance companies are not fond of pre-existing condtions
Yes, but there is an easy way around this: Just buy life insurance while you are still reasonably healthy.
Actually this is what got me thinking about the issue: I was recently buying life insurance to protect my family. When I got the policy, I noticed that it had an “accelerated death benefit rider,” i.e. if you are certifiably terminally ill, you can get a $100k advance on the policy proceeds. When you think about it, that’s not the only way to raise substantial money in such a situation. For example, if you were terminally ill, your spouse probably wouldn’t mind if you borrowed $200k against the house for cryopreservation if she knew that when you finally kicked the bucket she would get a check for a million from the insurance company.
So the upshot is that from a selfish perspective, there is a lot to be said for taking a “wait and see” approach.
(There’s another issue I thought of: Like most life insurance policies, the ones I bought are good only for 20 years. There is a pretty good chance that I will live for those 20 years but in the meantime develop a serious health condition which makes it almost impossible to buy more insurance. What then?)
So again, the key here is determining how strongly you value your continued existence.
(There’s another issue I thought of: Like most life insurance policies, the ones I bought are good only for 20 years. There is a pretty good chance that I will live for those 20 years but in the meantime develop a serious health condition which makes it almost impossible to buy more insurance. What then?)
That’s a feature, not a bug, of term life insurance. That’s the tradeoff you’re making to get coverage now at a cheap rate. But of course, the option value exists on both sides—so if you want to lock in relatively lower rates, well, that’s why whole life insurance exists.
That’s a feature, not a bug, of term life insurance. That’s the tradeoff you’re making to get coverage now at a cheap rate. But of course, the option value exists on both sides—so if you want to lock in relatively lower rates, well, that’s why whole life insurance exists.
Yes, good point. I actually looked into getting whole life insurance but the policies contained so many bells, whistles, and other confusions that I put it all on hold until I had bought some term insurance. Maybe I will look into that again.
Of course if I were disciplined, it would probably make sense to just “buy term and invest the difference” for the next 30 years.
Hmmm. You do have some interesting ideas regarding cryonics funding that do sound promising, but to be safe I would talk to Alcor, specifically Diane Cremeens, about them directly to ensure ahead of time that they’ll work for them.
Probably that’s a good idea. But on the other hand, what are the chances that they would turn down a certified check for $200k from someone who has a few months to live?
I suppose one could argue that setting things up years in advance so that Alcor controls the money makes it difficult for family members to obstruct your attempt to get frozen.
what are the chances that they would turn down a certified check for $200k from someone who has a few months to live?
In addition to the money, Alcor requires a lot of legal paperwork, including a notarized will. You can probably do that if you have “a few months,” but it’s one more thing to worry about, especially if you’re dying of something that leaves you mentally impaired and makes legal consent complicated. I don’t know how strict about this Alcor would be; I second the grandparent’s advice to ask Diane.
I don’t think it’s been asked before on Less Wrong, and it’s an interesting question.
It depends on how much you value not dying. If you value it very strongly, the risk of sudden, terminal, but not immediately fatal injuries or illnesses, as mentioned by paper-machine, might be unacceptable to you, and would point toward joining Alcor sooner rather than later.
The marginal increase your support would add to the probability of Alcor surviving as an institution might also matter to you selfishly, since this would increase the probability that there will exist a stronger Alcor when you are older and will likely need it more than you do now.
Additionally, while it’s true that it’s unlikely that Alcor would reach you in time if you were to die suddenly, compare this risk to the chance of your survival if alternately you don’t join Alcor soon enough, and, after your hypothetical fatal car crash, you end up rotting in the ground.
And hey, if you really want selfish reasons: signing up for cryonics is high-status in certain subcultures, including this one.
There are also altruistic reasons to join Alcor, but that’s a separate issue.
Thank you for your response; I suppose one would need to estimate the probability of dying in such a way that having previously joined Alcor would make a difference.
Perusing Ben Best’s web site and using some common sense, it seems that the most likely causes of death for a reasonably healthy middle aged man are cancer, stroke, heart attack, accident, suicide, and homicide. We need to estimate the probability of sudden serious loss of faculties followed by death.
It seems that for cancer, that probability is extremely small. For stroke, heart attack, and accidents, one could look it up but just guesstimating a number based on general observations, I would guess roughly 10 to 15 percent. Suicide and homicide are special cases—I imagine that in those cases I would be autopsied so there would be much less chance of cryopreservation even if I had already joined Alcor.
Of course even if you pre-joined Alcor, there is still a decent chance that for whatever reason they would not be able to preserve you after, for example, a fatal accident which killed you a few days later.
So all told, my rough estimate is that the improvement in my chances of being cryopreserved upon death if I joined Alcor now as opposed to taking a wait and see approach is 5% at best.
Does that sound about right?
That does sound about right, but with two potential caveats: one is that individual circumstances might also matter in these calculations. For example, my risk of dying in a car accident is much lowered by not driving and only rarely riding in cars. However, my risk of dying of heart disease is raised by a strong family history.
There may also be financial considerations. Cancer almost certainly and often heart disease and stroke take time to kill. If you were paying for cryonics out-of-pocket, this wouldn’t matter, but if you were paying with life insurance the cost of the policy would go up, perhaps dramatically, if you were to wait until the onset of serious illness to make your arrangements, as life insurance companies are not fond of pre-existing condtions. It might be worth noting that age alone also increases the cost of life insurance.
That being said, it’s also fair to say that even a successful cryopreservation has a (roughly) 10-20% chance of preserving your life, taking most factors into account.
So again, the key here is determining how strongly you value your continued existence. If you could come up with a roughly estimated monetary value of your life, taking the probability of radical life extension into account, that may clarify matters considerably. There at values at which that (roughly) 5% chance is too little, or close to the line, or plenty sufficient, or way more than sufficient; it’s quite a spectrum.
Yes I totally agree. Similarly your chances of being murdered are probably a lot lower than the average if you live in an affluent neighborhood and have a spouse who has never assaulted you.
Suicide is an interesting issue—I would like to think that my chances of committing suicide are far lower than average but painful experience has taught me that it’s very easy to be overconfident in predicting one’s own actions.
Yes, but there is an easy way around this: Just buy life insurance while you are still reasonably healthy.
Actually this is what got me thinking about the issue: I was recently buying life insurance to protect my family. When I got the policy, I noticed that it had an “accelerated death benefit rider,” i.e. if you are certifiably terminally ill, you can get a $100k advance on the policy proceeds. When you think about it, that’s not the only way to raise substantial money in such a situation. For example, if you were terminally ill, your spouse probably wouldn’t mind if you borrowed $200k against the house for cryopreservation if she knew that when you finally kicked the bucket she would get a check for a million from the insurance company.
So the upshot is that from a selfish perspective, there is a lot to be said for taking a “wait and see” approach.
(There’s another issue I thought of: Like most life insurance policies, the ones I bought are good only for 20 years. There is a pretty good chance that I will live for those 20 years but in the meantime develop a serious health condition which makes it almost impossible to buy more insurance. What then?)
I agree with this to an extent.
That’s a feature, not a bug, of term life insurance. That’s the tradeoff you’re making to get coverage now at a cheap rate. But of course, the option value exists on both sides—so if you want to lock in relatively lower rates, well, that’s why whole life insurance exists.
Yes, good point. I actually looked into getting whole life insurance but the policies contained so many bells, whistles, and other confusions that I put it all on hold until I had bought some term insurance. Maybe I will look into that again.
Of course if I were disciplined, it would probably make sense to just “buy term and invest the difference” for the next 30 years.
Hmmm. You do have some interesting ideas regarding cryonics funding that do sound promising, but to be safe I would talk to Alcor, specifically Diane Cremeens, about them directly to ensure ahead of time that they’ll work for them.
Probably that’s a good idea. But on the other hand, what are the chances that they would turn down a certified check for $200k from someone who has a few months to live?
I suppose one could argue that setting things up years in advance so that Alcor controls the money makes it difficult for family members to obstruct your attempt to get frozen.
In addition to the money, Alcor requires a lot of legal paperwork, including a notarized will. You can probably do that if you have “a few months,” but it’s one more thing to worry about, especially if you’re dying of something that leaves you mentally impaired and makes legal consent complicated. I don’t know how strict about this Alcor would be; I second the grandparent’s advice to ask Diane.