X-Message-Number: 5964
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:01:28 -0500
From: <> (Jeffrey Soreff)
Subject: Re: Funding and probability (was Untitled)

John de Rivaz wrote:
>Have you considered the argument that for cryonics to succeed we need
>enormous advances in technology, advances which are not accepted as
>possible by the mainstream establishment. The mainstream view is reflected
>by stock market quotations for stocks.

>Therefore if cryonics succeed, we will be revived into a world where stock
>prices are substantially different to anything present professional
>projections could produce. We can make projections using data they do not
>have. As we get nearer that future (even in this side of suspension)
>technology stocks on average will rise faster than professionals would
>be able predict using their present mind-sets.
>If I am wrong and technology stocks do not substantially outperform the
>markets in the long term, then it could be due to the failure of technology
>to deliver or the failure of society to allow it to deliver (eg by stifling
>progress by regulation and preventing the scientific method of "standing on
>the shoulders of giants" with intellectual property laws). In this instance
>it is also likely that cryonics revivals will not happen, so little has
>been lost.

That is a very interesting idea.  In principle, I agree with you for the long
term.  (Come to think of it, did you propose this idea at one point as a way
to fund the *revival* of cryonics patients?  That period is very likely to
have fully functional nanotechnology, and indeed to have different market
prices than at present.)  I'm less convinced that this helps all that much
prior to suspension.  If funding for nanotechnology is scarce, and it takes
50 years till the first diamondoid assembler is built, stock prices could be
unaffected at the time that I'm frozen.

I very much like the idea of funding a conditional expense based on the market
effects correlated with the condition.  Very neat, though I'm not sure that the
time scale for this particular correlation works out properly.  I do agree
with what I think you were implying: Funding a conditional expense via market
correlations reduces it's effective cost.  In terms of my original question,
this reduces the crossover probability at which planning for suspension is a
good choice.  Any thoughts on what value it takes under your assumptions?

                                                   -Jeffrey Soreff

standard disclaimer: I do not speak for my employer.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5964