Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexjeffrey | Hacker News Reader

the thing I find most depressing about cryonics is that the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs for one rich person to desperately attempt to cling to life, in spite of the odds that cryonics is not reversible, would actually save hundreds, if not thousands of lives, today.

Maybe instead of having your body frozen in the off chance that you can wake up 100 years old and with no friends, family, or prospects, you should give that money to a charity who will use it to save real lives that are being ended for ridiculous reasons like having no access to clean water or being attacked by malaria-carrying mosquitoes that can be deterred with a $5 net.

View on HN

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of telling people what to do with their earned post-tax, post-obligation wealth.

You could make the same argument for any number of things, probably things you even do. Let's play with your sentence a bit:

"The thing I find most depressing about televisions is that the trillions of dollars collectively spend on hardware and programming would actually save millions of lives."

You can apply that to pretty much anything people do in first world countries that isn't available to people in the third world. Please get off your high horse and don't get bent out of shape when people do something that's in their own interest.

did you even bother to read the conversation I had with blueskin_ before posting this? I clarified my position quite a lot, specifically against the particular straw man you've just raised.

You can get a neuropreservation for ~$75,000[1]. It also might be preferable in many cases as if you're old, you don't really want to be brought back with an old and decrepit body even if future medical technology allows an improved quality of life, having a new body that is non-aged would be preferable. The technology to regrow the majority of the body isn't that far off in the timescale that cryonics thinks in.

[1] As it is, the vast majority of people pay via life insurance rather than directly, both because it's far cheaper, and because there are risks in paying directly as the money could get caught up in a legal battle, while the patent's brain is rotting all the while.

Neuropreservation also allows a better preservation in many cases as newer preservation methods and technologies are often only applied to neuropatients first, before becoming available for whole body patients later.

I'm personally interested in neuropreservation. The only thing I have to lose in my body is my tattoos (which I would be sad to lose, but it would be worth it to live again and be young again), and which I would reproduce on my new body anyway.

If you say "people shouldn't spend their money on things they want to because it could be spent on other people", I seriously hope you don't have a house, nice car, food over basic subsistence level, etc. at the risk of you coming off as a massive hypocrite.

if you'd like to re-read what I wrote, it's more along the lines of "when looking to spend a large amount of money on a very unlikely attempt to extend one's own life, after having lived a full life, maybe consider using that money to give a large number of other people a chance instead". You're arguing against a straw man.

The key points in my argument are that:

a. cryopreservation is a very expensive way to maybe save the life of one person who has already lived a full life (I don't direct my criticism at those who want to be cryopreserved due to a fatal illness at a younger age)

b. charity is an effective way to use the same amount of money to save many lives, often the lives of people would have died at a very young age and with a great deal of suffering

Even if I could force you to change your mind, I wouldn't, but I believe that the charitable option should be seriously considered by anyone looking at cryonics.

>maybe consider using that money to give a large number of other people a chance instead

What's to say that Alcor members don't donate to charity already?

People will always die. People will always give to charity. One person doesn't affect that.

Saying cryonics is bad because of that is the equivalent of saying that if someone was badly injured in (for example) a car crash in America, and received a big insurance payout to cover the hundreds of grand in hospital bills, they should donate it to charity and die instead.

For those Alcor members who do donate to charity, good on them! Charities could always use more money, however - pledging $10/month to water aid is a great start but pledging $100,000 or more from a life insurance payout would make a massive difference.

Your second argument doesn't make sense - if no one individual could make a difference then by summation, no difference could be made by any number of individuals. You can't seriously argue that a donation of e.g. $100,000 to a life-saving charity makes no difference to anyone.

Thirdly, let me clarify that I never claimed cryonics is bad, and I do not hold that opinion. I would encourage research into cryonics in the same way that I would encourage research into cancer drugs or AIDS mitigation. However, I contend that under my personal ethical position, it would be more ethical to save many young lives than to invest in a small probability of saving one old life. Abstracting away from the specific case of cryonics, I suppose I would generally state that I believe (at this early state in life extension research) that death of/at old age is inevitable. By accepting this, instead of trying to deny it using technology that is incredibly immature and does not yet have any proof of effectiveness, one frees up one's financial resources to take care of family and friends, and if one is a wealthy individual, to attempt to save the lives of others.

>You can't seriously argue that a donation of e.g. $100,000 to a life-saving charity makes no difference to anyone.

It also doesn't make such a massive, terrible, catastrophic difference if it isn't made as money is fungible.

I'm not actually sure on any particular foibles of life insurance payments to charity, but if it was easy/doable, it seems like something that many more altruistic people would do.

Your argument applies equally well to experimental cancer treatments. And of course, it applies much much more to luxury goods like fancy cars, fancy houses, swimming pools, vacations, business-class plane tickets, cable TV, etc. The only way to avoid this criticsm is to live like a monk and donate all surplus income to the most effective charity.

your criticism is correct of the argument that you're countering, but that's not the argument I was making - see my reply to blueskin_ for a clarification/rebuttal.

[edit] just so you know, I upvoted your comment to counter a downvote from someone else. You make a strong case, regardless of the fact that it didn't address my original point.

I think the parent has a fair argument, and I don't think blueskin_ was really off either. Do you know -- actually know -- the current state of the science behind cryonics? If so, good on you, but if not (more likely), how do you know exactly what the probability of being revived later is?

People (even not-so-rich people) spend upwards of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just to prolong their own life a couple months. How is the cost of that expense more justifiable than even a small probability of being revived in the future and becoming healthy and possibly immortal?

In the end, it's a judgment call as to what you do with your money. Unfortunately, fear of mortality and death is a very strong motivator for a lot of people, so we don't necessarily spend money related to death in a particularly optimal way. It's the height of arrogance to suggest that your way is better, or, even if it is objectively better, to impose your views on someone else's use of their money.

I'm a keen transhumanist, so yes I am familiar with the state of cryonics. I'm not a cryogenicist and couldn't put an actual number on the probability of success (neither could anyone else) but I'm aware of the serious challenges that face cryonics. For example, while the current chemical cocktail they're using as antifreeze is much more effective than the original solutions, the problem of cell deterioration due to cell membrane rupture still prevents the brain from being well preserved for the timescales cryonics is looking at. While we don't understand the brain that well yet, the extent of physical brain damage that would be seen over e.g. 100 years' freezing under current conditions would not be insignificant. That may not be a problem in the future, but noone can predict the future.

Also, to suggest I'm imposing my view on other people is asinine; this is a forum for voicing opinions, and I'm voicing mine. I understand that when I'm on my death bed I might well make the same decision to preserve my body - human beings are hypocrites by nature and I'm certainly no exception. However, if you're suggesting that raising an opinion/suggestion on the subject that is different to yours is arrogance then I'd take a moment to consider the idea that it might be _you_ that is being arrogant; reread my post and maybe you'll realise that my tone was more along the lines of highlighting an alternative use for this money, and with much more viable results in objective terms. If cryonics was known (or even generally considered) to be viable then I would likely hold a different opinion.

The difference is that you are telling people what they should do with their money (which is arrogant, or possibly holier-than-thou, but I'd certainly not a positive thing). I'm telling you to back off and let people decide for themselves. If you have some special dictionary that suggests I'm being arrogant there, I'd love to see it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com