I just came up with another excuse: I can’t afford to pay for it.
I don’t have $29,250 in savings. I also have no income and don’t expect to have one in the future. Given the nature of the insurance business, the expected value of buying life insurance should be negative; I can’t buy the insurance with my savings and expect to get a larger payout unless I take steps to hasten my own death.
I don’t feel as though I deserve to be revived in the future. I suspect that my existence has been a net loss for the world so far. I make garbage. I’ve been educated at taxpayer expense. I’ve done very little that anyone would consider a service worth paying for. I’m a leech, a parasite, a (figurative) basement dweller, a near-hikikomori, a lazy bum, a loser, and plenty of other negative terms. And this isn’t going to change. So why should I leave the future with the burden of dealing with me?
Tell you what. If I make it (to the creation of an FAI), and no one else has already done it, I will personally spend the resources to revive you and pay for your upkeep. I further make this pledge for anyone who is cryopreserved and unwanted.
I think most people who are concerned about revival aren’t really considering on an emotional level FAI at all. I’d considered making the same promise regardless of FAI, but I think that it would be negligent of me to do so, with such important investment opportunities available. Also, I’m not sure I’d have that much money, even for just CronoDAS.
How do you know? Or, in other words, why do you assign a lower priority to this than to cryopreservation actually working?
(If it didn’t work, then it doesn’t matter if you deserved it or not, any money you had would still be redistributed in the society, and you wouldn’t cause any significant expense anymore.)
Given the nature of the insurance business, the expected value of buying life insurance should be negative
This is thoroughly confused. The expected amount of money out of the deal is negative, but even expected value of money is positive (otherwise people shouldn’t buy insurance), and in this particular case you need to think about expected value of your post-revival life, not money.
Life insurance is purchased more for signaling than as a financial instrument. (Life insurance was unsellable when the product was invented; the concept of your family profiting from your death was morbid. Salesmen eventually realized they had to market it as something a man purchases to provide for his family in the unlikely event of his death; buying it was buying the identity of a successful family man.)
Life insurance is purchased more for signaling than as a financial instrument.
I originally wrote “otherwise people won’t buy insurance”, then recognized the difference, and posted the phrasing “otherwise people shouldn’t buy insurance”. A lot of insurance really does have positive expected value.
The expected amount of money out of the deal is negative
That’s what I meant to say.
If were to try to buy cryonics with a life insurance policy, I’ll probably run out of savings with which to pay the insurance premiums before I die of natural causes.
The expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is, if used as directed, always zero!
Also, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this before, but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing, like going to the bathroom or popping a zit.
Edit: Since my point is that the insured will have no gain, the expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is always negative—thanks mattnewport.
but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing, like going to the bathroom or popping a zit.
I see no compelling reason care about another person’s mundane, unavoidable bodily functions. But I can see a number of compelling reasons to care about another person’s sanity.
So if I suspect I’m mentally unhealthy or ill-adjusted, I should just keep it to myself, rather than communicating honestly about my situation with a group of folks on the internet and running the risk of… making bgrah449 feel uncomfortable?
Mentally healthy, well-adjusted people don’t tend to freely admit negative things about themselves at all, cognitively dissonating or not. (With a few exceptions along the lines of demonstrating lower value to a significantly lower status other in order to promote comfort.)
The expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is, if used as directed, always zero!
I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying that money is of no use to the dead? There’s a very real sense in which this is not true: people do have preferences as to what happens to their money after they die. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t write wills.
Also, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this before, but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing, like going to the bathroom or popping a zit.
Also, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this before, but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing
Umm, why? If you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance, you should let others know of it, so they can help you consider the issue and hopefully resolve the cause of the dissonance.
Surely the expected monetary value is always negative (the insurance company has to make a profit)? The expected utility is presumably positive if the decision to purchase life insurance was rational.
Well from that perspective the monetary value is even more negative—you pay out a premium but you are guaranteed never to personally receive the payout. The monetary value doesn’t depend on you being alive to collect the payout though. The expected monetary value of insurance is always negative (absent insurance fraud) but the expected utility may be positive.
I just came up with another excuse: I can’t afford to pay for it.
I don’t have $29,250 in savings. I also have no income and don’t expect to have one in the future. Given the nature of the insurance business, the expected value of buying life insurance should be negative; I can’t buy the insurance with my savings and expect to get a larger payout unless I take steps to hasten my own death.
You should know by now that “I just came up with another excuse” is a red flag for motivated cognition. We might not have even found your true reason for rejection yet...
Well, my true reason might indeed be something more along the lines of “my parents wouldn’t approve of it”.
And the original post referred to reasons not to sign up for cryonics as “excuses” so I copied the terminology. ;)
Yet another possible “true rejection”:
I don’t feel as though I deserve to be revived in the future. I suspect that my existence has been a net loss for the world so far. I make garbage. I’ve been educated at taxpayer expense. I’ve done very little that anyone would consider a service worth paying for. I’m a leech, a parasite, a (figurative) basement dweller, a near-hikikomori, a lazy bum, a loser, and plenty of other negative terms. And this isn’t going to change. So why should I leave the future with the burden of dealing with me?
Tell you what. If I make it (to the creation of an FAI), and no one else has already done it, I will personally spend the resources to revive you and pay for your upkeep. I further make this pledge for anyone who is cryopreserved and unwanted.
Then you’re part of the problem. I’m sick of being a charity case.
I’m pretty sure most people are concerned more with the scenario where revival comes before FAI.
I think most people who are concerned about revival aren’t really considering on an emotional level FAI at all. I’d considered making the same promise regardless of FAI, but I think that it would be negligent of me to do so, with such important investment opportunities available. Also, I’m not sure I’d have that much money, even for just CronoDAS.
That sounds like it could be closer to home.
How do you know? Or, in other words, why do you assign a lower priority to this than to cryopreservation actually working?
(If it didn’t work, then it doesn’t matter if you deserved it or not, any money you had would still be redistributed in the society, and you wouldn’t cause any significant expense anymore.)
This is thoroughly confused. The expected amount of money out of the deal is negative, but even expected value of money is positive (otherwise people shouldn’t buy insurance), and in this particular case you need to think about expected value of your post-revival life, not money.
Life insurance is purchased more for signaling than as a financial instrument. (Life insurance was unsellable when the product was invented; the concept of your family profiting from your death was morbid. Salesmen eventually realized they had to market it as something a man purchases to provide for his family in the unlikely event of his death; buying it was buying the identity of a successful family man.)
I originally wrote “otherwise people won’t buy insurance”, then recognized the difference, and posted the phrasing “otherwise people shouldn’t buy insurance”. A lot of insurance really does have positive expected value.
That’s what I meant to say.
If were to try to buy cryonics with a life insurance policy, I’ll probably run out of savings with which to pay the insurance premiums before I die of natural causes.
Ah, OK. Assuming the insane premises that you keep stating, this conclusion makes sense.
The expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is, if used as directed, always zero!
Also, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this before, but cognitive dissonance is supposed to be a private thing, like going to the bathroom or popping a zit.
Edit: Since my point is that the insured will have no gain, the expected monetary value of life insurance to the insured is always negative—thanks mattnewport.
I see no compelling reason care about another person’s mundane, unavoidable bodily functions. But I can see a number of compelling reasons to care about another person’s sanity.
Mentally healthy, well-adjusted people cognitively dissonate privately. EDIT: When they can help it.
So if I suspect I’m mentally unhealthy or ill-adjusted, I should just keep it to myself, rather than communicating honestly about my situation with a group of folks on the internet and running the risk of… making bgrah449 feel uncomfortable?
Got it.
What’s the upside for you? The Internet coming back with a prescription of well-adjustment?
Mentally healthy, well-adjusted people don’t tend to freely admit negative things about themselves at all, cognitively dissonating or not. (With a few exceptions along the lines of demonstrating lower value to a significantly lower status other in order to promote comfort.)
I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying that money is of no use to the dead? There’s a very real sense in which this is not true: people do have preferences as to what happens to their money after they die. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t write wills.
Money is of no use to the dead. But reliable guarantees about how wealth will be distributed after death is something the living value.
I don’t see why and didn’t want the imagery.
Would the fox be happier with an audience?
Thanks for that link. I hadn’t heard that one.
Umm, why? If you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance, you should let others know of it, so they can help you consider the issue and hopefully resolve the cause of the dissonance.
Also, it’s perfectly fine to show your irrationality here.
Surely the expected monetary value is always negative (the insurance company has to make a profit)? The expected utility is presumably positive if the decision to purchase life insurance was rational.
The insured won’t be cashing any checks; his monetary gain is zero.
Well from that perspective the monetary value is even more negative—you pay out a premium but you are guaranteed never to personally receive the payout. The monetary value doesn’t depend on you being alive to collect the payout though. The expected monetary value of insurance is always negative (absent insurance fraud) but the expected utility may be positive.
Your first statement is right; I’m making a correction in the original comment. My point was that the dead can’t spend money.