As someone who has read a bit about cryonics and is not convinced, I’d be interested in a summary of the arguments for cryonics. However, I’m skeptical it would convince me to sign up.
I’m not convinced that revival of most cryopreserved people will ever be possible in any reasonable sense, even if we have strong AI. Brain damage sets in quickly, so to me you have to take it on faith that being preserved when they can is adequate. Add on a host of other things which you have to take on faith about the entire process, and it seems closer to a scam than the fountain of youth to me. The entire scheme seems to be wishful thinking. I find it hard to estimate the probabilities involved with this because it’s so speculative. With that being said, I gave about a 2% chance of a cryopreserved human being revived before 2040, mostly because I don’t know what the future holds. (Note that this prediction is fairly weak. This is a 2% probability that at least 1 human will be revived. If there are 100 attempts and 1 is a success then that’s enough, but the track record would be pretty bad. I don’t anticipate there will be many attempts by that date, though.)
Assuming I would be revived if preserved, I don’t see any reason to believe I’ll come out unscathed. I would rather be not revived at all than to be revived severely mentally retarded, for example.
With that being said, I’m not opposed to the idea and give it serious consideration, but I believe maximizing my own QALYs in more established ways like physical fitness is much more important. Also, it’s worth noting that I don’t believe immortality is necessarily a good goal in isolation. If I were immortal, I’d want my memory erased every couple hundred years or so just to keep things interesting (I assume if cryonics works then this is likely possible with no ill effects. Might also be possible to reverse wiping someone’s memory if they store it somewhere.).
I recently had the realization that cryo might actually have some unintended consequences. I can think of one which would need to be addressed before I’d sign up: risk compensation. That is, because one has signed up for cryo they might feel less risk and do more dangerous things. A few quick Google searches suggests cryo people might not be aware of this issue, so I don’t know what their response might be.
Maybe cryo believers are paranoid enough about dying that they are unaffected or less affected by risk compensation. This is possible, but I see being unaffected as unlikely given that irrationality affects us all. To give an example of how this might manifest, people signed up for cryo might be more likely to be out of shape than similar people who are not signed up for cryo. There’s no clear evidence either way, but I’d be interested in seeing where the truth lies before considering signing up.
That is, because one has signed up for cryo they might feel less risk and do more dangerous things.
The best “death” for cryo members is one where you have time to notify your provider before hand. You have an incentive to take extra care against accidents where this wouldn’t happen. My being a member of Alcor in part motivated this post.
Excellent point I had not considered. I’d still be curious to see whether those signed up for cryonics have healthier habits (with respect to exercise, diet, wearing bike helmets, etc.), but this seems like reasonable evidence to believe they do. In fact, it seems to me that signing up for cryonics, even if you believe it to be overwhelmingly unlikely to work, might provide strong incentive to have good habits. I don’t know if this is cost effective, but it’s worth considering.
As someone who has read a bit about cryonics and is not convinced, I’d be interested in a summary of the arguments for cryonics. However, I’m skeptical it would convince me to sign up.
What are your main concerns?
I’m not convinced that revival of most cryopreserved people will ever be possible in any reasonable sense, even if we have strong AI. Brain damage sets in quickly, so to me you have to take it on faith that being preserved when they can is adequate. Add on a host of other things which you have to take on faith about the entire process, and it seems closer to a scam than the fountain of youth to me. The entire scheme seems to be wishful thinking. I find it hard to estimate the probabilities involved with this because it’s so speculative. With that being said, I gave about a 2% chance of a cryopreserved human being revived before 2040, mostly because I don’t know what the future holds. (Note that this prediction is fairly weak. This is a 2% probability that at least 1 human will be revived. If there are 100 attempts and 1 is a success then that’s enough, but the track record would be pretty bad. I don’t anticipate there will be many attempts by that date, though.)
Assuming I would be revived if preserved, I don’t see any reason to believe I’ll come out unscathed. I would rather be not revived at all than to be revived severely mentally retarded, for example.
With that being said, I’m not opposed to the idea and give it serious consideration, but I believe maximizing my own QALYs in more established ways like physical fitness is much more important. Also, it’s worth noting that I don’t believe immortality is necessarily a good goal in isolation. If I were immortal, I’d want my memory erased every couple hundred years or so just to keep things interesting (I assume if cryonics works then this is likely possible with no ill effects. Might also be possible to reverse wiping someone’s memory if they store it somewhere.).
I recently had the realization that cryo might actually have some unintended consequences. I can think of one which would need to be addressed before I’d sign up: risk compensation. That is, because one has signed up for cryo they might feel less risk and do more dangerous things. A few quick Google searches suggests cryo people might not be aware of this issue, so I don’t know what their response might be.
Maybe cryo believers are paranoid enough about dying that they are unaffected or less affected by risk compensation. This is possible, but I see being unaffected as unlikely given that irrationality affects us all. To give an example of how this might manifest, people signed up for cryo might be more likely to be out of shape than similar people who are not signed up for cryo. There’s no clear evidence either way, but I’d be interested in seeing where the truth lies before considering signing up.
The best “death” for cryo members is one where you have time to notify your provider before hand. You have an incentive to take extra care against accidents where this wouldn’t happen. My being a member of Alcor in part motivated this post.
Excellent point I had not considered. I’d still be curious to see whether those signed up for cryonics have healthier habits (with respect to exercise, diet, wearing bike helmets, etc.), but this seems like reasonable evidence to believe they do. In fact, it seems to me that signing up for cryonics, even if you believe it to be overwhelmingly unlikely to work, might provide strong incentive to have good habits. I don’t know if this is cost effective, but it’s worth considering.
I’m just hoping for something that will get people to think about the possibility. Obviously, you already have.