X-Message-Number: 32131
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:56:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Luke Parrish <>
Subject: Re: Self Sacrifice

> From: "John de Rivaz" <>

> Luke Parrish makes an argument that is certainly appealing
> to cryonicists.
> However I doubt whether most people in positions of power
> will read it, and
> even if they did whether they would agree.


This is currently correct. As a younger person, I may have some luck getting 
things changed by the time I die. Aubrey de Grey has had some pretty good 
success in increasing the PR for indefinite life-extension in general, and 
cryonics naturally follows from that (being today's only option for the elderly 
and terminally sick). From the perspective that AEV (or the singularity) will be
reached soon, many younger people would have a primarily altruistic stake in 
cryonics.


(I think altruism and self-interest can be the same thing. The line between the 
two can be fuzzy at times. But they are different emotions, so we need to be 
aware of that.)

> The sheer logistics of offering cryopreservation at the end
> of life to
> anyone who would volunteer (about a third of the
> population) may make the
> cost per person low, but nevertheless involve a huge sum of
> money. In the UK
> it would be for nearly 20 million people. I would query
> whether this could
> be done for LUK20m, never mind $US20m. If this was ever
> proposed, even by a
> billionaire who would fund it totally, there would be loads
> of naysayers
> wanting the money spent on something else. The would
> propose using lawyers
> to force it to be spent elsewhere, even if only by
> frittering it away on
> useless reports and hearings. (Such "frittering" keeps it
> in the economy of
> the living.) They would prefer potential candidates for
> cryopreservation to
> be used for investigative dissection with possible
> harvesting of useable
> organs for transplant.

Just some back-of-napkin math for reference...


I calculate that roughly 20 million fullbody patients could be fit in a dome 100
meters in radius. That would be about 2 million cubic meters. I do imagine it 
would cost a few billion dollars, as it would have to be cryogenically sound. 
Ongoing costs would be based on a surface area of 100,000 square meters (upwards
of 60,000 wall space and 30,000 floor space). So depending on insulation 
factors, if it is $100 per square meter in a given month you'd be paying 10 
million per month or 50 cents per fullbody patient.

> The remit of anyone in authority is to help as many people
> as possible, not
> put a large effort into helping single individuals.
> Therefore if two lives
> can be saved by harvesting organs at the expense of one,
> (and so on in
> proportion) this remit is better served. Of course this is
> only applicable
> if the chance of saving the one is very low indeed. The
> perceived (without
> reading learned articles) chance of cryonics is considered
> too low.


This works only because people haven't adopted the life-extension meme yet. They
don't yet realize that having your life extended to 1000 years is worth more 
than two more decades of lifespan. Every person who would die of not having an 
organ transplant could also be cryopreserved.


Of course that argument rests on the chances of cryopreservation being 
significant enough to justify the risk. As you say, the popular view seems to be
that cryonics chances are low.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32131