Brace wrote:The cost of clinical immortality for early adopters is bound to be substantially higher than the cost of cryonics decades after its conception. And regarding the possibility of a bad outcome, it's just an expected value calculation. If what your life would be worth to you multiplied by the percent chance of cryonics working exceeds the cost of cryonics, it's a good gamble.
Only if you value "scientifically baseless off-chance that they will be able to revive me" over "donating these organs (including brain) to people who would die otherwise."
If cryogenics is someone's pasta, do whatever, it's a better gamble than cremation or just embalming them and dumping them in the ground. I just don't really see any of those as commendable -- at least a sky burial feeds something.
Nothin' wrong with donating organs, of course, but even a possibility of an indefinitely long lifespan holds a great deal of potential value for me.
I'm also reasonably young, and would not be surprised to see many organs being printed, grown, etc before I kick the proverbial bucket. So, expected value from donating organs, while currently high, will likely diminish with time.
iChef wrote:I agree with cryo being a bit silly. With the world population already skyrocketing I feel people of the future will just leave cryo patient in their freezers. "Yeah we didn't have space in the garage for a meat locker so we just put all our steaks and a few cartons of Ben and Jerry's in with great grampa, he already paid for the freezer, so it's all good".
Cryo depends on a world in which tech advances further. Advanced technical cultures do not really have a skyrocketing population problem. It's undeveloped countries that do. So, that's not a likely obstacle. More likely to be problematic is the simple fact that we do not yet have the tech. We might be missing something important about the preservation process.
Whizbang wrote:Personally, I think cryogenics is silly. We'll figure out a way to keep living people alive forever long before we figure out how to bring them back from the dead. By the time we get around to that technology, will there be any incentive to revive these people? Seems to me that somewhere along the way someone would have started cleaning out the attic and said "Why do we even keep these frozen heads? I go by the rule of thumb that if you don't thaw and revive something within a 100 years, you won't ever do it. Throw 'em out."
I admit to kind of considering some sort of very, very long term failsafe to prevent this scenario occuring. Or at least, to highly disincentivize it. Technically, it's ridiculously challenging, though.
Hell, even preserving wealth so, when you wake up, you can be reasonably certain of not being broke and homeless is challenging. I'd much rather be broke and homeless than dead, of course, so it's not THAT big of a deal, but it does open up a lot of interesting philosophical and practical questions.
Obviously, the dungeon idea is just awesome.