I might as well post this here because I don’t think it’s worth a new thread. Let’s assume for the purposes of this argument that you have a suitably high confidence in cryonic revival at some future time. How much do you weigh the number of deaths as a direct consequence of electricity consumed keeping you frozen, against your irreplaceablity in the future society? I’m assuming that there is a non-trivial amount of electricity involved, and substituting the monetary costs of electricity per Folding@Home user per year, with the amount paid per person per year to purchase cryonics services.
Does this train of thought hold at all? If anyone has the time and knowledge to run some numbers, that would be great...
Retracted after a bit of research; they just add more liquid nitrogen to counteract evaporation, and don’t actually use any electricity. (I honestly didn’t know this.)
I might as well post this here because I don’t think it’s worth a new thread. Let’s assume for the purposes of this argument that you have a suitably high confidence in cryonic revival at some future time. How much do you weigh the number of deaths as a direct consequence of electricity consumed keeping you frozen, against your irreplaceablity in the future society? I’m assuming that there is a non-trivial amount of electricity involved, and substituting the monetary costs of electricity per Folding@Home user per year, with the amount paid per person per year to purchase cryonics services.
Does this train of thought hold at all? If anyone has the time and knowledge to run some numbers, that would be great...
Cryonics storage doesn’t consume even a visible fraction of industrially produced liquid nitrogen. And it won’t for ten-thousands of patients to come.
Retracted after a bit of research; they just add more liquid nitrogen to counteract evaporation, and don’t actually use any electricity. (I honestly didn’t know this.)