

$6k per person to cryopreserve everyone? - lsparrish
http://lesswrong.com/lw/5w1/the_cost_of_universal_cryonics/

======
lsparrish
I'm thinking the figure probably errs more on the pessimistic side, though the
author considers it optimistic. It doesn't take into account increased
technology, the benefits of assisted suicide, or the availability of cheaper
labor and materials in third-world areas.

But in any case, this is a handy number to start thinking about how realistic
the goal of a post-death society really is. If everyone could have it, would
everyone want it? And if so, what is the maximum we would collectively be
willing to pay?

------
fnazeeri
Seems to me that spending that much money preserving "hardware" (bodies)
another (better) option would be to preserve "software" (e.g. DNA sequence,
MRI, cat scan, EKG, etc.).

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2590217>

~~~
lsparrish
While better than nothing, I am skeptical that a good enough MRI or CT scan
can be taken to preserve one's personality to the degree that preserving the
brain physically could do. Chemical preservation is one inexpensive option
that has been around for centuries -- Ben Franklin mentioned the possibility,
and some brains such as that of Charles Babbage are still preserved. Brains
preserved this way and scanned at a later date would yield much better data
than the best brain scans taken today.

However, even this is probably a lot less fidelity than cryonics at its best.
The vitrification process actually preserves a significant degree of cellular
viability. For example, a rabbit kidney has actually been successfully
implanted after cryopreservation. So if we are trying to maximize the degree
to which someone avoids death (acknowledging that some degree of death /
memory loss is probably inevitable, for now at least), cryonics is likely to
be the best available bet.

