Comments on: Cryonics As Charity

By: Overcoming Bias : Brin Says Cryonics Selfish

Overcoming Bias : Brin Says Cryonics Selfish — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:21:46 +0000

[...] Tyler, sf author David Brin says cryonics is [...]

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:10:01 +0000

The problem with that mindset is that most people don’t respect people who are nice to them, most of them only respect people who are jerks and who treat them badly.

How many people don’t respect Jimmy Carter, but do respect Nixon?

People at the bottom of the social hierarchy expect to be treated badly, and if you treat them nicely, they experience social and cognitive dissonance. They feel that if you are treating them nicely, you must be below them on the social hierarchy because only people below you treat you nicely.

Similarly if someone treats you badly, they must be above you in the social hierarchy.

By: gwern

gwern — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:26:13 +0000

Why is everyone assuming cryogenic freezing of heads? There are several alternatives – plastination and chemical preservatives of various stripes. They usually only cost in the neighborhood of two thousand, as well. (Long-term cryogenic storage of such a head would be more like 20k. You save a lot on the initial suspension.)

Doesn’t that significantly affect one’s calculations here?

By: These days, those days

These days, those days — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:28:48 +0000

One thing to remember is that cryonicists are placing their lives in the hands of others. And anytime someone places his life in the hands of others, it’s in his interests that the others don’t think he’s a jerk who doesn’t deserve their help. In other words, cryonics increases the incentives to be a nice guy rather than a jerk.

To illustrate, consider how Futurama portrays Richard Nixon as having taken advantage of cryonics. And suppose that in the cryonics lab, before they have figured out how to restore consciousness to the cryonic heads, the lab manager has to cut some of the heads off and let them die completely. He might well remember Richard Nixon’s reputation for being an evil bastard, and choose Richard Nixon to be cut off.

And therein lies the point. Nixon was the kind of guy who didn’t seem to care that the public viewed him as an ogre. But if he had been signed up for cryonics, he’d have more reason to “be good in order to seem good,” as the saying goes. And wouldn’t that have been better for the many people who were influenced by Nixon in his own time?

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:43:02 +0000

Cryonic suspension currently runs at around 40-80,000 USD. Cryonics looks as though it is going to remain a very expensive option – relative to cremation – or, for that matter tombstones.

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:30:17 +0000

Cryonics for AIDS patients seems like an *awful* way to donate. Regardless of whether charitable donations are for altruistic or signalling purposes, people should pick effective charities. Dud charities are a bane on humanity – since they channel resources away from the greater good. This post tries to explain why cryonics is better than some dud charities – but there seems to be no case that cryonics is a worthy cause compared to things of genuine importance. I would encourage people to step back from the cryonics advocacy here – and get things in perspective.

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:13:15 +0000

Negative framing is useful for letting arrogant phobes see themselves in a mirror. It is not a substitute for useful argument, but can be an effective counter to useless ones.

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:42:27 +0000

Tombstones are a congestion good. Cryonics is a scale good. There is no comparison. On a large scale cryonics is cheaper as a whole than buying everyone tombstones, because it gets progressively cheaper whereas tombstones run out of supply. You’re totally barking up the wrong tree if you think killing dead people extra dead is saving money, even if that did make it morally ok in some way, which it doesn’t.

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:59:48 +0000

Provided the frozen dead are relatively few in number, the resources they lock-up – and their gradual waste – are indeed not a huge deal for the rest of society. The economic costs of such an extravagent tombstone are most concentrated among their loved ones though – sso they may be the ones who care enough to bring up the issue.

By: Aron

Aron — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 05:41:45 +0000

Nope. Negative framing is useless.