Hacker News Reader

This analogy makes little sense. Nature is the man with the hammer. After you die he smashes your brain to bits. There is nothing left. You cease to exist forever.

Cryopreservation is an attempt to stop the man with the hammer. By preserving your brain, you give yourself a chance that you can be revived, if technology advances that far. Which certainly seems very likely.

It is a tragedy that the majority of people who die are not cryopreserved. It's absolutely silly. Even if there is only a small chance it will work, it is still absolutely worth doing.

Dying is already expensive enough without cryopreservation.

> The bag with the remains of the watches gets carefully pocketed and some of the money goes towards ordering a round of drinks for everybody.

I might have misunderstood this bit (in which case, oops). I see way too many people making the assumption that cryonics is somehow primarily profit motivated. Taking money out of the cryonics trust to "buy drinks" would potentially cost the lives of patients, as the organization must remain stable in addition to the revival being achievable to begin with. The incentive is towards long term savings.

> So, how about my watch, asks one of the people that handed over his watch and his money. "Oh, that's the hard part, I haven't really studied that yet, come back in a few 100 years and I might have your watch again. But I'm getting better at smashing watches, that's for sure."

This analogy doesn't make much sense to me. Cryonics is about trying to prevent something that will inevitably be smashed from being smashed as badly. Saying cryonics is about smashing things is like saying seat belts are about cars crashing into each other.

we can't save lives, only postpone a bit the death.

Cool story, bro. Cryonics as it currently exists being profitable is 1) irrelevant to whether it works or not, and 2) a persistent myth.