I’m afraid 1. just doesn’t work, at all—if you can save more lives by being an organ donor, and you think this is the right thing to do, this is an entirely separate question from how many lives you can save by giving money to VillageReach, and I don’t see how the answer to one can have a bearing on the other.
If you save thousands of lives by giving away money during your lifetime, then on the day you die, the relevant question is still: can I save more lives at the margin by being cryogenically preserved or by donating my organs? Unless you think of saving lives as some sort of competition, rather than as intrinsically a good thing to do, the answer to this question is completely unaffected by how much money you gave away when you were alive.
Edit I now realise the suggestion is to give away extra money when you die, but this just has exactly the same problem. You don’t get extra money by freezing your body.
NB—I’m not saying I really believe the objection is valid, I’m just saying that your proposed solution really doesn’t work.
Another thing to think about here: if you save lives by donating your organs, the organs will probably go to elderly people who are not signed up for cryonics, and will probably die in the next few decades regardless. So you will have saved a few decades of infirmity. On the other hand, if you are revived from cryopreservation, you will probably be revived to immortal, healthy life. So, if the Singularity/some other form of immortality does not happen until more than a few decades after your death, you can save more years, with greater average quality of life, by cryopreserving yourself.
ETA: Also, if the people your organs go to are signed up for cryonics, then getting your organs still wouldn’t make that much difference to the total number of years they live.
I’m afraid 1. just doesn’t work, at all—if you can save more lives by being an organ donor, and you think this is the right thing to do, this is an entirely separate question from how many lives you can save by giving money to VillageReach, and I don’t see how the answer to one can have a bearing on the other.
If you save thousands of lives by giving away money during your lifetime, then on the day you die, the relevant question is still: can I save more lives at the margin by being cryogenically preserved or by donating my organs? Unless you think of saving lives as some sort of competition, rather than as intrinsically a good thing to do, the answer to this question is completely unaffected by how much money you gave away when you were alive.
Edit I now realise the suggestion is to give away extra money when you die, but this just has exactly the same problem. You don’t get extra money by freezing your body.
NB—I’m not saying I really believe the objection is valid, I’m just saying that your proposed solution really doesn’t work.
Another thing to think about here: if you save lives by donating your organs, the organs will probably go to elderly people who are not signed up for cryonics, and will probably die in the next few decades regardless. So you will have saved a few decades of infirmity. On the other hand, if you are revived from cryopreservation, you will probably be revived to immortal, healthy life. So, if the Singularity/some other form of immortality does not happen until more than a few decades after your death, you can save more years, with greater average quality of life, by cryopreserving yourself.
ETA: Also, if the people your organs go to are signed up for cryonics, then getting your organs still wouldn’t make that much difference to the total number of years they live.
So… sign up for the “head only” cryonics. All your organs get donated to others, and you still get cryonics, because nobody gets a donor brain.
You could still even donate your corneas...
Edit and have just read further down the comments to see why this is not optimal…