Comment by blueskin_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by blueskin_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com