Was the point of the article cryonics? or was it the conclusion, to answer “why”? The conclusion generalizes and is probably of interest to people who are not interested in cryonics, who might have skipped the article because of the title. (If the point was cryonics as such, I agree with Thom Blake.)
Your answer to “why?” is that we have incoherent preferences, leading to inaction. We have intransitive preferences, perhaps because of disagreement between systems 1 and 2. We don’t act as a money pump, getting exploited by an adversary, but we run around in circles, wastefully.
Here is some expository advice.
Was the point of the article cryonics? or was it the conclusion, to answer “why”? The conclusion generalizes and is probably of interest to people who are not interested in cryonics, who might have skipped the article because of the title. (If the point was cryonics as such, I agree with Thom Blake.)
Your answer to “why?” is that we have incoherent preferences, leading to inaction. We have intransitive preferences, perhaps because of disagreement between systems 1 and 2. We don’t act as a money pump, getting exploited by an adversary, but we run around in circles, wastefully.