X-Message-Number: 8379 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:05:46 -0700 From: Marty Nemko <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #8370 - #8377 References: <> First, let me thank all of you who took the time to write such thoughtful responses to my "Nagging doubts."--You'll remember, it was the message fearing that the probability of satisfactory reanimation was less than 1 in a billion, and looking for some justifiable reassurance. I'm not sure that the optimism that characterizes the responses is justified. I'll insert my pessimisms IN CAPS into Joe Strout's response to my posting:. If any of you have better estimates of the probabilities, I'd love to hear about them: > From: "Joseph J. Strout" <> > Subject: Re: Marty's Nagging questions > > In Cryomsg #8369, Marty Nemko <> writes: > > >My analysis is as follows. The probability of my > >being revived satisfactorily is the joint probability of the following > >events: > > > >The probability of my actually being suspended (e.g., not lost at sea, > >last-minute objections from family or physician) TIMES > > Let's start plugging in some numbers -- just guesses, of course. > Last-minute objections can be prevented with proper precautions; the more > experienced cryonicists here can probably give us empirical probabilities, > but let's suppose this happens 1 in 100 times. 1 in 100 is probably also > about how likely you are to be lost at sea, destroyed in a plane crash, > etc. That leaves .98 probability of being suspended. LOOK EMPIRICALLY AT THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO WERE MEMBERS OF CRYONICS ORGANIZATIONS WHO UPON LEGAL DEATH ACTUALLY RECEIVED A TIMELY SUSPENSION. I WOULD GUESS--AND IT'S ONLY A GUESS, BUT IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO .7. > > >the probability of a suspension timely enough to retain my memories > >TIMES > > This is more unknown, and varies widely. You probably have a couple hours > at room temperature -- some would say more, some less. Again, the cryo > orgs may have data for empirical probabilities, but let's estimate a 0.8 > chance of getting a decent suspension. Not great, but not too bad either. THIS IS THE FACTOR ON WHICH YOU ARE MOST OVERLY OPTIMISTIC. THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO, I BELIEVE (AND SOMEONE KNOWLEDGEABLE PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG), IS THAT MEMORY IS IT LEAST PARTLY ELECTRICAL, SO WHEN ONE DIES, MEMORIES ARE LOST, MUCH AS COMPUTER INFORMATION IN RAM IS LOST WHEN THE POWER IS TURNED OFF. I WOULD ASSESS THE PROBABILITY OF A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF MEMORY BEING RETAINED IN THE SUSPENDED PATIENT TO BE NO MORE THAN .1 . > > >the probabililty that I will remain frozen for the hundred(s) of years > >until it becomes possible to be revived TIMES > > I doubt it will take more than a hundred years. So what are the chances of > earthquake, war, revolution, or religious terrorism striking your cryonics > provider in 100 years? Hard to say. Let's suppose there's a 0.3 chance of > one of these happening, which I think is probably too high; that leaves 0.7 > probability that your suspension will be uninterrupted. MOST OF THE ESTIMATES OF THE TIME IT WILL TAKE UNTIL WE CAN BE REVIVED IS BETWEEN 100 AND 250 YEARS, AND GIVEN THE RAPID ADVANCE OF WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION (VERY COMPACT NUCLEAR, GERM, AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS), IT IS LIKELY THAT EVEN CRAZED INDIVIDUALS WILL HAVE THE POWER TO DESTROY A LARGE GEOGRAPHIC AREA.) THAT IS BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD OCCUR IN 100-250 YEARS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE OUR REVIVAL. SO I WOULD ESTIMATE (AND OF COURSE THIS IS JUST SHOOTING FROM THE HIP) THIS PROBABILTY TO BE .2 > > >the probability that my memories will be retained during the hundred(s) > >of years TIMES > > Ah, an easy one. This is 1.0. As long as you're frozen, your memories > aren't going anywhere. I SUPPOSE THAT'S PROBABLY RIGHT. IF MEMORIES WEREN'T LOST BEFORE THE LIQUID-NITROGEN PHASE, THEY'RE PROBABLY STILL THERE. COOL! (PARDON THE PUN.) > > >the probability that there are funds in my patient care account to > >revive me TIMES > > This depends on your initial funding, as well as economic factors. Also, > it depends on what happens when there is insufficient funding. Descendants > may foot the bill themselves, or the government may haul you out (possibly > in debt), or your cryonics organization may pay for it and bill you for the > remainder. I think if we get to the point where people are being revived, > and therefore we recognize these patients are *alive*, nobody will be left > in the tank for lack of funds. Let's suppose there's a 0.8 chance that I'm > right about that. JUST ON A GUT LEVEL, THIS SIMPLY FEELS TOO HIGH. GIVEN COST OF LIVING INCREASES, THE LIKELY EXTREMELY HIGH COST OF REANIMATION, ETC, I BELIEVE THAT .3 IS CLOSER TO CORRECT. > > >the probability that my cryonics organization or subsequent designee > >remains in business and willing and able to revive me TIMES > > You've overlooked the probability that if your cryo org goes under, others > will take on their patients (and patient care funds), just as insurance > companies do today. But that might not necessarily work, and of course > there's a chance that ALL cryo orgs will fail. How about a 0.5 probability > that this won't happen (you can see that I consider this the most serious > danger). TO BET ON A CRYONICS ORGANIZATION OR ITS DERIVATIVE LASTING 100-250 YEARS IS NO .5. LOOK HISTORICALLY. HOW MANY INSTITUTIONS HAVE LASTED THAT LONG. FOR EVERY CATHOLIC CHURCH AND HARVARD UNIVERSITY THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME, THERE ARE DOZENS Of INSTITUTIONS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO BE AROUND FOR A LONG TIME (e.g., LOTS OF CORPORATIONS), THAT ARE LONG DEFUNCT. TRUE, CRYONICS ORGANIZATIONS, BECAUSE THEIR LONGEVITY IS SO CRUCIAL, WILL LIKELY TAKE EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED EXISTENCE, BUT I WOULD ASSESS THE PROBABILITY OF THEIR BEING AROUND FOR 100-250 YEARS AT .2 . > > >the probability that the revival will be physically successful TIMES > > Hmm, yes, the revival might fail, and we have very little idea how it's > going to work at all, let alone what the success rate might be. But they > wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't generally successful, and depending on > the failure mode, they might be able to freeze you again for a later > attempt. So let's say there's a 0.8 chance of success at this point -- > again, probably pessimistic. AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT'S OPTIMISTIC. SUCCESSFUL REVIVAL WILL LIKELY REQUIRE THE CREATION AND NEAR PERFECT UTIZILIATION OF A VARIETY OF NANOMACHINES. GIVEN THE NUMBER OF CELLS THAT MUST BE "FIXED", EACH MACHINE AND EACH CELL WORKING PERFECTLY, THE ODDS OF A SUCCESSFUL REVIVAL--ONE IN WHICH THE RESULT IS A FULLY FUNCTIONING HUMAN BEING INCLUDING BRAIN, MOVEMENT, SENSATION--SEX???--, WOULD SEEM TO BE VERY LOW. WHAT I IMAGINE HAPPENING IS THAT 100-250 YEARS FROM NOW, WE'LL HAVE SOME SORT OF TECHNOLOGY THAT OFFERS SOME HOPE FOR THIS TO WORK, BUT IT WILL NEVER WORK WELL ENOUGH. WE'LL REVIVE SOME PEOPLE UNSUCCESSFULLY, PERHAPS FREEZE EM AGAIN, TRY OTHER FOLKS WITH A TECHNOLOGY 10 or 20 YEARS MORE ADVANCED, BUT IT IS HERE--IN THE REVIVAL METHODOLOGY-WHERE WE HAVE LOW, LOW PROBABILITIES. IN MY VIEW, THE PROBABILITY OF OUR HAVING THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO NOT--TOO-COSTLY REVIVALS WITHIN THE NEXT 250 YEARS IS NO BETTER THAN 0.1. SURE, SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE, PERHAPS 1000 YEARS FROM NOW, THE PROBABILITY OF HAVING THAT TECHNOLOGY WILL VASTLY INCREASE, BUT IF WE HAVE TO WAIT 1000 YEARS, THE PROBABILITY OF OUR BODIES STILL BEING THERE AND THE CRYONICS ORG. STILL BEING THERE ARE VERY SMALL. I THINK WE SHOULD STAY WITH A PROBABILTIY OF .1 . > > >the probability that I will awake without dire pain (in my view, an > >extremely small probability) TIMES > > Why would you be in pain? If they can cure what killed you AND the > freezing damage, surely they can cure whatever might be causing you pain? > Let's give this a 0.9999 probability. NO. THE REVIVAL PROCEDURE COULD BE 99.9999% EFFECTIVE, YET IF ONLY A FEW CELLS ARE NOT RIGHT, WE COULD BE IN DIRE PAIN. RIGHT NOW, A PERSON WITH A MIGRAINE HAS NEARLY EVERYTYING RUNNING RIGHT IN HIS OR HER BODY, YET THAT 1 PROBLEM CAN MAKE THEIR LIFE RATHER MISERABLE. I BELIEVE THAT THE ODDS OF A PERSON BEING REANIMATED PAIN FREE IS VERY LOW. TO ME, 0.1 WOULD BE OPTIMISTIC--THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY SOURCES OF PAIN IN THE BODY. > > >the probability that the government will allow my revival TIMES > > Why would they not? If it can be done at all, then it will be obvious that > these patients are alive and not really dead. It would then be tantamount > to murder to NOT allow revival. It is like supposing that the government > might not allow you to be treated for AIDS. Even if there's a 10% chance > that governments are so evil, we have a 0.9 probability of clearing this > hurdle. I BELIEVE THIS IS SOMEWHAT OPTIMISTIC. LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CRAZIES NOW. I COULD EASILY SEE GOVERNMENTS DECRYING OVER POPULATION--"WE CAN"T EVEN PROVIDE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY LIVING. DO WE WANT TO REVIVE THESE PEOPLE, PROBABLY HAVE TO PROVIDE ENORMOUS WELFARE PAYMENTS TO SUPPORT THEIR REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY. THEY'RE ALREADY HAD THEIR LIFE." I WOULD ESTIMATE THE PROBABILTY OF OUR BEING PERMITTED TO BE REVIVED AT .7 . > > >the probability that I will be allowed to go free rather than be kept in > >a laboratory for experimentation or zoo for observation TIMES > > Well, might as well think of everything, hm? Unless you can think of any > reason why a patient who is clearly alive and human, and who has committed > no crime, would be denied basic human rights, we'll assign a 0.99 chance > that this won't happen. I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT. BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO ASSIGN a .99 PROBABILITY TO THE BENEVOLENCE OF GOVERNMENT, OR OF SOME PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS THAT MIGHT TRY TO GET THEIR HANDS ON US. I'D ASSIGN A PROBABILITY OF .9. > > >the probability that I will have or could earn sufficient funds not to > >starve to death or otherwise have a life so meager that it wouldn't be > >worth living. > > Well, that's a matter of values, I guess. I can't imagine a life so meager > I'd rather be dead; I also can't imagine a society where jobs are so scarce > that I can't learn some trade. That society would also have to have no > welfare system, no minimum standard of living, and no charity > organizations. I'd be willing to clean toilet bowls for a few decades (or > whatever the future equivalent) rather than be dead, so for me, there's at > least a 0.9 chance of being satisfied. I AGREE WITH THIS PROBABILITY AND YOUR REASONING BEHIND IT. > > >And those are the probabilities that I can imagine. I would bet that > >there are other contingencies that I can't even imagine. > > I think your imagination is pretty good, but let's be generous and lump all > the unimaginables as a 0.5 chance. FAIR ENOUGH. > > Now, what's that give us for total probability of success? > > 0.98 * 0.8 * 0.7 * 1.0 * 0.8 * 0.5 * 0.8 * 0.9999 * 0.9 * 0.99 * 0.9 * 0.5 > = 0.07 > > ...About a 7% chance of success. Not great, but I'll take it over a 0% > chance any day. >WITH MY NUMBERS THE PROBABILITY IS: 1 in 400,000. ONE OF THE OTHER RESPONDENTS TO MY POST-BROOK--SAID THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO USE SIMPLE JOINT PROBABILITIES. BROOK, WOULD YOU PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT HERE? STILL EAGER TO BE DISABUSED (BUT ONLY ON RATIONAL GROUNDS), Marty Nemko Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8379