
Cryonics As A Large Scale Enterprise - lsparrish
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2f5/cryonics_wants_to_be_big/
======
reasonattlm
First, let's get the freezing thing out of the way. Modern cryonics doesn't
freeze, it vitrifies. Very important difference. The difference between
freezing and vitrification is clearly explained for the layperson in the Alcor
FAQ:

<http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/vitrification.html>
<http://www.alcor.org/FAQs/index.html>

Now here are a bunch of economics and cryonics thoughts:

[http://fightaging.org/archives/2009/06/cryonics-and-
economic...](http://fightaging.org/archives/2009/06/cryonics-and-economic-
incentives.php)

"I note that the cryonics community, rather like the diverse libertarian
community, possesses a sizeable minority with a great (and I think misplaced)
belief in the power of contracts - of words on paper. You see it in the
constitutionalists in the US or the fellows looking for loopholes in tax laws
that will enable them to escape the IRS entirely. Words on paper, however,
have only as much weight as there are economic incentives aligned with them."

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/01/you-cant-take-
it-...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006/01/you-cant-take-it-with-
you.php)

"The trouble with property left undefended, as the ancient Egyptians and every
other culture that buried wealth with the dead has handily demonstrated, is
that no-one else's interests are aligned with yours."

[http://fightaging.org/archives/2009/04/pastinate-
everyone.ph...](http://fightaging.org/archives/2009/04/pastinate-everyone.php)

"You might recall the recently voiced suggestion that it's something of an
accident of history that the cryonics movement is the cryonics movement versus
the plastination movement. Plastination is plausibly just as good a way of
preserving the fine structure of the brain into a future where a patient can
be restored to life as low-temperature storage."

------
hugh3
Let us make the (imho unjustified) assumptions that (a) folks in the future
will have the technology to unfreeze and revive cryogenically frozen bodies
and that (b) present-day cryogenically frozen bodies will last that long
without getting unfrozen due to... whatever. Oh, and (c) that a revived
cryogenically frozen person is actually the "same person" that went into the
deep freeze, ie that it will be "me" conscious in the future rather than a
disconnected consciousness who shares my memories.

Anyway, isn't it likely that the larger the cryogenic facilities the less
likely they are to unfreeze you? If we had the opportunity to bring back a
dozen neanderthals we probably would, because that would be fascinating.

But if we had the opportunity to bring back a hundred million neanderthals,
and then had to figure out what to do with them (I'm thinking a series of
District 9 style shantytowns would probably be the most likely scenario) we'd
probably think it was kinder to leave them dead.

So if I were planning to freeze myself I'd be trying to discourage too many
other folks from doing so. On the other hand, I'd also want to have a steady
stream of a small number of people doing it well into the future, to keep the
cryogenics companies active and solvent.

~~~
reasonattlm
The revival idea is, at its core, this: cryonics providers are communities as
much as business entities. They are trying to establish (a) technology for
ever better preservation, (b) a community that will continue across
generations (success so far), and (c) the means of restoration - in more or
less that order of priority. Though some groups are more focused on (b) than
(a).

The revival will be accomplished by the community once it is possible, not
some third party, because this is just as much the established goal of the
cryonics community as preserving people in the first place.

~~~
hugh3
It will happen once it's possible because that's their current goal?

I can imagine the (already small) amount of interest in cryonics would greatly
diminish in the future if aging is ever cured (and I think curing aging will
be easier than bringing back the dead). Once my own survival is assured, why
should I give a damn about the "cryonics community" and a bunch of frozen
heads?

~~~
lsparrish
Are you seriously like that?

ETA: Shouldn't it be obvious that severed heads are human in a circumstance
where they can be restored to life?

~~~
hugh3
People are seriously like that, yes.

Maybe people will get revived if and when the technology exists to do so,
maybe they won't. It would be a bad idea to rely purely on the kindness of
people whose culture may have very little in common with our own, though.

Heck, if I get frozen and woken up in the future I'll give you two to one odds
that I'm either a zoo exhibit or a slave.

~~~
lsparrish
You are giving two to one odds on humanity completely losing their moral
compass then.

If that's the case, something is seriously wrong and needs to be fixed.

~~~
hugh3
Actually I'm not, I just think that most of the scenarios where someone _does_
wake me up are scenarios in which they don't have my best interests at heart.

Far more likely they never wake me up, either because (a) the technology never
gets developed or (b) the technology gets developed but my body is too far
gone to be revived or (c) the technology gets developed and my body could be
revived but nobody ever chooses to do so, for whatever reason.

Everybody acknowledges the possibilities (a) and (b), but I do want to bring
attention to possibilities (c) and "slave", since I think too many people have
too much faith that the people of the far future will consider reviving the
frozen heads of long-dead cryonics geeks to be a good use of their presumably-
still-not-infinite resources.

~~~
lsparrish
I'm confused. Scenario (c) sounds inherently dependent on humanity losing its
moral compass. So it sounds like your assessment of the risk of such an event
occurring is much _higher_ than two to one.

