1) I think I can save more lives by being an organ donor.
2) I can’t afford it, even with life insurance.
3) If there is a Singularity, I expect it will happen before I die anyway.
I can’t actually sign up until I’m 18 even if all these are refuted, but I will precommit to signing up when I’m old enough.
1) Calculate how many lives you can save with your organs. Pre-commit to donate enough money to save as many lives, on top of what you would normally want to donate.
2) Since you are under 18, I can see your problem. Your chances of dying where cryonics would be an option (read: not in an accident) are so tiny, it’s probably OK to wait. But you can always take out a loan (maybe?) or borrow from someone.
3) Do you want to take that chance? I also believe that the Singularity will happen within my lifetime, but I am totally willing to pay ~$80 a month to increase the chance of my brain existing when it happens (even if it’s only 1%).
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.
1) Calculate how many lives you can save with your organs. Pre-commit to donate enough money to save as many lives, on top of what you would normally want to donate.
Doesn’t sound like a good fix to me. Isn’t the donated money necessarily taking away from some other (presumably also life-saving or otherwise valued) endeavor? Instead I’d point out that it’s possible to have it both ways: freeze the brain and donate the rest. Not much demand for brain-donors, compared to kidneys or corneas.
1) Statistics on this are almost impossible to find, with lots of websites declaring that you can save 100 lives without any substantiation. If there are any studies of average lives saved per donor, I haven’t been able to find them. Saving 100 people another way would be prohibitively expensive, but I’m not convinced those numbers are right.
2) This is my biggest hang-up. It’s hard to get a loan without a steady job, and most people I know won’t loan me money for something they think is crazy. At least for the next 30 years, my chances of dying where cryonics would be an option are pretty small. When does it stop being OK to wait?
3) Now that you point it out, this is more a excuse-to-stop-thinking than an answer. It’s easier not to worry about whether I could sign up for cryonics when I can downsize the expected impact by a factor of 100, but you’re right—even a 1% chance would still be worth it.
1) Look at GiveWell. This is precisely the kind of analysis they do.
2) It’s stops being OK to wait when you are not OK with dying right now. Since you are young, you can get life insurance for dirt cheap, $1-$10 a month. (Still probably have to wait until you are 18, unless your parents are supportive.) That would be Term Life insurance, which means it’ll be for something like 30 years. Then you’ll have to renew it at a much higher cost, since you’ll be older. So it won’t be the most cost efficient (or may be it will be) way to spend money, but it will serve its purpose. There is no harm in finding out exactly how much it will cost for you. I would recommend talking to Rudi Hoffman, cryonics life insurance is his specialty.
1) I find GiveWell’s analysis very convincing on the question of which charity to donate to; they estimate it costs between $500 and $1000 to save a life with Village Reach. What I can’t seem to find is how many lives I would save by becoming an organ donor—if GiveWell has reported on this, I can’t find it (and it seems outside their scope).
2) I’m taking a look at this. It appears to be nearly impossible to buy life insurance when under 18, but I’ll keep looking.
With a little research online you’ll probably be able to figure out the average number of lives saved per organ donor and the probability that you will become one before you age to the point when your organs aren’t wanted.
My quick Googling prior to making posting the grandparent seemed to show that the demand for donor organs goes unfilled—people die on the waiting list.
The singularity (or the technological state we roughly mean by it) could easily depend on centuries of continued incremental research. Moore’s Law is coming up against some fundamental barriers. Furthermore, it may be advisable to slow the approach of the singularity for precautionary reasons (e.g. by restricting access to the most powerful hardware), as a bad singularity is to be avoided pretty much at all costs.
Cryonics also doesn’t depend directly on a singularity, just either very good (compared to today) scan/emulate tech or very good cell repair tech. These involve progress in different areas of science, so one might be a dead end whereas the other turns out to work.
Supporting cryonics as a younger person (whether by signing up or by supporting it from the sidelines) could result in earlier development of hypothermia and other related biochemical alternatives, eliminating the need for cryonics as we know it. Instead you could conceivably enter a state of hibernation as you near old age, for a few years at a time, until a cure for aging is developed.
Supporting cryonics as a younger person (whether by signing up or by supporting it from the sidelines) could result in earlier development of hypothermia and other related biochemical alternatives, eliminating the need for cryonics as we know it.
So you would recommend signing up at 16, even if my personal odds of dying now are pretty small?
Cryonics also doesn’t depend directly on a singularity, just either very good (compared to today) scan/emulate tech or very good cell repair tech.
What would you estimate as the probability of developing technology that will make cryonics work without a singularity?
So you would recommend signing up at 16, even if my personal odds of dying now are pretty small?
I haven’t signed up myself yet, and I’m 28, so it would be suspicious if I recommended this. (My reasons for not doing so are somewhere between financial and “ugh, paperwork.”) But I do recommend becoming actively involved in the cryonics specific subset of the transhumanism community and making long-term financial plans with this expense in mind.
What would you estimate as the probability of developing technology that will make cryonics work without a singularity?
I assign perhaps 65% likelihood to that, assuming we rule out long-range as well as short-range singularities, and assuming something like today’s best cryonics quality levels. The added risk is because a) the ceiling for non-singularity tech might be lower (it sort of rule out matrioshka brain kind of stuff, if that is relevant), and b) non-singularity tech could take longer to reach high enough levels (even as compared to distant singularities) which increases storage-time associated risks. The latter kind can be mitigated to some degree by increasing storage security—but it would have to be very close to arbitrarily low to survive for multiple thousands of years.
The likelihood of it working climbs to closer to 100% (or at least towards the chances of curing aging, which I think are in the high 90%’s in the long run, even without a singularity) if the cryostasis technology improves during our lifetimes, as the problems of cooling can then be resolved sooner and with less chance of being inherently unsolvable (for any given technological ceiling).
1: If cryonics is appealing because it potentially saving your life, then not signing up once you have the money is effectively suicide / voluntary euthanasia. The fact that other people could be saved by your organs is true whether or not you are signed up for cryonics—so if your life is worth less to you than 4 or 8 strangers’ lives, you should commit suicide and donate your organs.
If you don’t want to commit suicide to donate organs, you shouldn’t want to avoid cryonics to donate organs.
2: This is not a reason not to do it, it’s a reason you literally currently can’t. So make more money (there are lots of other better sources of how to do this; if you want to delve down this road, reply or PM and I’ll provide more resources).
3: How confident are you that it will happen before you die? Given the number of years of additional life you are buying a chance at by signing up for cryonics, the extra chance at preserving your identity and ‘coming back’ via cryonics may still be worth the extra cash. But that depends on the probabilities you assign to the various relevant factors (chance of singularity during lifetime & chance of cryonics resulting in extended life, mainly).
1) I value my life more than the lives of 4-8 strangers, as demonstrated by the fact I haven’t committed suicide to donate my organs. Based on the reading I have done so far, I can’t realistically assign cryonics a greater than 10% chance of actually working, so the question is whether I value my life (discounted by a factor of 10) more than the lives of 4-8 strangers, which I don’t. If Omega told me cryonics was guaranteed to work, I would sign up.
2) Making money without a high school degree, special skills, or Eliezer-level intelligence is more difficult than I think most highly-trained people realize. I’ll PM you, though.
3) I would assign a very high probability to a Singularity within my lifetime; I would also say I am 85% confident that if the Singularity does not happen in my lifetime, it will not happen. If the 21st century closes without any of the advances we anticipate, that would dramatically increase my estimate that they are impossible.But I’ve conceded to Alexai that even discounting for all this, it is probably still worth it; if I can resolve the other issues I will sign up.
Making money [...] is more difficult than I think most highly-trained people realize.
The cost of a life insurance policy that covers cryonics is, I think, much less expensive than most people realize. I did the math myself recently and I think it came out to, conservatively, $500/year, which I could easily afford on a retail / call center paycheck. It is definitely worth your time to at least look in to the exact cost for you personally. You’re young so you’re probably looking at significantly less than me.
Disclaimer: I’m not signed up either; I’m currently trying to sort out why. Discovering it was that cheap has removed a very major obstacle that I wasn’t aware of, however.
Doing this exercise has really forced me to clarify my thinking on this—you should try it.
I did a little research and it looks like it would be less than $15 a month for me, which removes that objection—except for the fact I can’t buy life insurance until I’m 18.
1) I think I can save more lives by being an organ donor.
There were about 6 thousand people last year in Canada who needed an organ transplant [1] and around 247 thousand deaths [2]. Of those deaths, about 1/3rd were prevented by existing donors. We’d be preventing less than 2% of all deaths in Canada if everyone got the donations they needed.
Donation is only viable in cases of brain death (~49% odds) [1], and I couldn’t find any statistics on how often a donor body is actually usable (but I’d assume vastly less than 100% of those cases, since you have to die of brain death in a hospital and still have cardiac activity) All in all, there’s a deficit of donors, so it’s probably still helpful (unless you’re a man who has had sex with another man, in which case you might not even be legally eligible; it’s banned in Canada).
I think you’re probably saving less than 1 life on average by being a donor. You’d probably do better to convince some friends and co-workers to sign up with, since organ donation is “low hanging fruit” (free, socially acceptable), and sign yourself up for cryonics (you can claim you’ve gone with the more complex “donate body to medical science” if you need a social excuse for why you’re not an organ donor yourself)
If you’re not doing cryonics, there’s no excuse for not being an organ donor, of course, so don’t use this as an excuse to wiggle out of doing one or the other! :)
Men who have had sex with another man. Thanks for calling me on it; I was mimicking the standard language I see there. Unfortunately the trans/queer-erasure remains, because the legal system tries desperately to pretend everyone fits in the nice binary boxes.
Oddly enough, here in France I see more and more mentions of transpeople, and fewer and fewer mentions of bisexual people, both in the mainstream and in LGBT media.
I’ve noticed the same, actually. However, the question of “can a trans-person legally donate blood/organs” is… well, not answered at all, to my knowledge, because they don’t fit the expected binary box of “are you a male who has had sex with another male?”
I think you’re probably saving less than 1 life on average by being a donor.
U.S. websites tend toward overblown claims (100 lives saved per donor...) that have made it nearly impossible for me to figure this out. It appears there are 15,000 donors per year here, and around 28,000 lives saved, implying it’s more than 1 life per donor (but not 5 or 10, as I had assumed).
I am currently signed up to be a donor, and I’m not really trying to wiggle out so much as figure out which option is better.
nods I tried looking at U.S. websites and found a pretty consistent “up to 8 lives saved” and anywhere from 40-100 that benefit from tissue donation. The big missing factor in my research was how often an organ donor actually ends up donating. Everything I read hinted at less than 50%, but I never found a firm figure.
I’d thought that signing up for both organ donation and even head-only cryonics leads to battles over one’s body- the necessary preparations are quite different. I’d be happy to find I’m mistaken, though.
What orthonormal said—I was told that the circulatory system was used to get the crypopreservant into the brain and this rendered the other organs unusable.
If you avoid cigarettes, meth and drunk drivers you should be able to live damn near forever, unless we completely f* up and lose our drive or our ability to continue to advance technologically. By the time you’re in your late 30s or early 40s you’ll have a much better idea. If you’re still typing on the Internets (in whatever form it is 20 years from now) you’ll be able to make a MUCH better informed decision. If you’re sleeping in a rough shelter and hunting/gathering for food with what’s left of civilization, well the cryonics wouldn’t have helped anyway (the corpsicles will have been thawed and eaten with the rest of the stored food).
I am not signed up for cryonics.
1) I think I can save more lives by being an organ donor. 2) I can’t afford it, even with life insurance. 3) If there is a Singularity, I expect it will happen before I die anyway.
I can’t actually sign up until I’m 18 even if all these are refuted, but I will precommit to signing up when I’m old enough.
1) Calculate how many lives you can save with your organs. Pre-commit to donate enough money to save as many lives, on top of what you would normally want to donate.
2) Since you are under 18, I can see your problem. Your chances of dying where cryonics would be an option (read: not in an accident) are so tiny, it’s probably OK to wait. But you can always take out a loan (maybe?) or borrow from someone.
3) Do you want to take that chance? I also believe that the Singularity will happen within my lifetime, but I am totally willing to pay ~$80 a month to increase the chance of my brain existing when it happens (even if it’s only 1%).
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…
Doesn’t sound like a good fix to me. Isn’t the donated money necessarily taking away from some other (presumably also life-saving or otherwise valued) endeavor? Instead I’d point out that it’s possible to have it both ways: freeze the brain and donate the rest. Not much demand for brain-donors, compared to kidneys or corneas.
Currently, it’s not possible to do both.
Factor that into your analysis of cryonics: if enough people sign up, organ donation can be integrated into the vitrification protocol.
1) Statistics on this are almost impossible to find, with lots of websites declaring that you can save 100 lives without any substantiation. If there are any studies of average lives saved per donor, I haven’t been able to find them. Saving 100 people another way would be prohibitively expensive, but I’m not convinced those numbers are right. 2) This is my biggest hang-up. It’s hard to get a loan without a steady job, and most people I know won’t loan me money for something they think is crazy. At least for the next 30 years, my chances of dying where cryonics would be an option are pretty small. When does it stop being OK to wait? 3) Now that you point it out, this is more a excuse-to-stop-thinking than an answer. It’s easier not to worry about whether I could sign up for cryonics when I can downsize the expected impact by a factor of 100, but you’re right—even a 1% chance would still be worth it.
1) Look at GiveWell. This is precisely the kind of analysis they do.
2) It’s stops being OK to wait when you are not OK with dying right now. Since you are young, you can get life insurance for dirt cheap, $1-$10 a month. (Still probably have to wait until you are 18, unless your parents are supportive.) That would be Term Life insurance, which means it’ll be for something like 30 years. Then you’ll have to renew it at a much higher cost, since you’ll be older. So it won’t be the most cost efficient (or may be it will be) way to spend money, but it will serve its purpose. There is no harm in finding out exactly how much it will cost for you. I would recommend talking to Rudi Hoffman, cryonics life insurance is his specialty.
1) I find GiveWell’s analysis very convincing on the question of which charity to donate to; they estimate it costs between $500 and $1000 to save a life with Village Reach. What I can’t seem to find is how many lives I would save by becoming an organ donor—if GiveWell has reported on this, I can’t find it (and it seems outside their scope).
2) I’m taking a look at this. It appears to be nearly impossible to buy life insurance when under 18, but I’ll keep looking.
With a little research online you’ll probably be able to figure out the average number of lives saved per organ donor and the probability that you will become one before you age to the point when your organs aren’t wanted.
But not necessarily the marginal number of lives saved, which is the important thing.
My quick Googling prior to making posting the grandparent seemed to show that the demand for donor organs goes unfilled—people die on the waiting list.
The singularity (or the technological state we roughly mean by it) could easily depend on centuries of continued incremental research. Moore’s Law is coming up against some fundamental barriers. Furthermore, it may be advisable to slow the approach of the singularity for precautionary reasons (e.g. by restricting access to the most powerful hardware), as a bad singularity is to be avoided pretty much at all costs.
Cryonics also doesn’t depend directly on a singularity, just either very good (compared to today) scan/emulate tech or very good cell repair tech. These involve progress in different areas of science, so one might be a dead end whereas the other turns out to work.
Supporting cryonics as a younger person (whether by signing up or by supporting it from the sidelines) could result in earlier development of hypothermia and other related biochemical alternatives, eliminating the need for cryonics as we know it. Instead you could conceivably enter a state of hibernation as you near old age, for a few years at a time, until a cure for aging is developed.
So you would recommend signing up at 16, even if my personal odds of dying now are pretty small?
What would you estimate as the probability of developing technology that will make cryonics work without a singularity?
I haven’t signed up myself yet, and I’m 28, so it would be suspicious if I recommended this. (My reasons for not doing so are somewhere between financial and “ugh, paperwork.”) But I do recommend becoming actively involved in the cryonics specific subset of the transhumanism community and making long-term financial plans with this expense in mind.
I assign perhaps 65% likelihood to that, assuming we rule out long-range as well as short-range singularities, and assuming something like today’s best cryonics quality levels. The added risk is because a) the ceiling for non-singularity tech might be lower (it sort of rule out matrioshka brain kind of stuff, if that is relevant), and b) non-singularity tech could take longer to reach high enough levels (even as compared to distant singularities) which increases storage-time associated risks. The latter kind can be mitigated to some degree by increasing storage security—but it would have to be very close to arbitrarily low to survive for multiple thousands of years.
The likelihood of it working climbs to closer to 100% (or at least towards the chances of curing aging, which I think are in the high 90%’s in the long run, even without a singularity) if the cryostasis technology improves during our lifetimes, as the problems of cooling can then be resolved sooner and with less chance of being inherently unsolvable (for any given technological ceiling).
1: If cryonics is appealing because it potentially saving your life, then not signing up once you have the money is effectively suicide / voluntary euthanasia. The fact that other people could be saved by your organs is true whether or not you are signed up for cryonics—so if your life is worth less to you than 4 or 8 strangers’ lives, you should commit suicide and donate your organs.
If you don’t want to commit suicide to donate organs, you shouldn’t want to avoid cryonics to donate organs.
2: This is not a reason not to do it, it’s a reason you literally currently can’t. So make more money (there are lots of other better sources of how to do this; if you want to delve down this road, reply or PM and I’ll provide more resources).
3: How confident are you that it will happen before you die? Given the number of years of additional life you are buying a chance at by signing up for cryonics, the extra chance at preserving your identity and ‘coming back’ via cryonics may still be worth the extra cash. But that depends on the probabilities you assign to the various relevant factors (chance of singularity during lifetime & chance of cryonics resulting in extended life, mainly).
1) I value my life more than the lives of 4-8 strangers, as demonstrated by the fact I haven’t committed suicide to donate my organs. Based on the reading I have done so far, I can’t realistically assign cryonics a greater than 10% chance of actually working, so the question is whether I value my life (discounted by a factor of 10) more than the lives of 4-8 strangers, which I don’t. If Omega told me cryonics was guaranteed to work, I would sign up.
2) Making money without a high school degree, special skills, or Eliezer-level intelligence is more difficult than I think most highly-trained people realize. I’ll PM you, though.
3) I would assign a very high probability to a Singularity within my lifetime; I would also say I am 85% confident that if the Singularity does not happen in my lifetime, it will not happen. If the 21st century closes without any of the advances we anticipate, that would dramatically increase my estimate that they are impossible.But I’ve conceded to Alexai that even discounting for all this, it is probably still worth it; if I can resolve the other issues I will sign up.
The cost of a life insurance policy that covers cryonics is, I think, much less expensive than most people realize. I did the math myself recently and I think it came out to, conservatively, $500/year, which I could easily afford on a retail / call center paycheck. It is definitely worth your time to at least look in to the exact cost for you personally. You’re young so you’re probably looking at significantly less than me.
Disclaimer: I’m not signed up either; I’m currently trying to sort out why. Discovering it was that cheap has removed a very major obstacle that I wasn’t aware of, however.
Doing this exercise has really forced me to clarify my thinking on this—you should try it. I did a little research and it looks like it would be less than $15 a month for me, which removes that objection—except for the fact I can’t buy life insurance until I’m 18.
There were about 6 thousand people last year in Canada who needed an organ transplant [1] and around 247 thousand deaths [2]. Of those deaths, about 1/3rd were prevented by existing donors. We’d be preventing less than 2% of all deaths in Canada if everyone got the donations they needed.
Donation is only viable in cases of brain death (~49% odds) [1], and I couldn’t find any statistics on how often a donor body is actually usable (but I’d assume vastly less than 100% of those cases, since you have to die of brain death in a hospital and still have cardiac activity) All in all, there’s a deficit of donors, so it’s probably still helpful (unless you’re a man who has had sex with another man, in which case you might not even be legally eligible; it’s banned in Canada).
I think you’re probably saving less than 1 life on average by being a donor. You’d probably do better to convince some friends and co-workers to sign up with, since organ donation is “low hanging fruit” (free, socially acceptable), and sign yourself up for cryonics (you can claim you’ve gone with the more complex “donate body to medical science” if you need a social excuse for why you’re not an organ donor yourself)
If you’re not doing cryonics, there’s no excuse for not being an organ donor, of course, so don’t use this as an excuse to wiggle out of doing one or the other! :)
[1] http://www.transplant.ca/pubinfo_orgtiss.htm [2] http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo07a-eng.htm
Do you mean a man who has sex with men, or do they allow bisexual men? (The incidence of e.g. HIV might be different in these populations.)
(Full disclosure: I am so fucking tired of bisexual erasure I will use thread derailment and other acts of terrorism^W mildannoyanceism.)
Men who have had sex with another man. Thanks for calling me on it; I was mimicking the standard language I see there. Unfortunately the trans/queer-erasure remains, because the legal system tries desperately to pretend everyone fits in the nice binary boxes.
Oddly enough, here in France I see more and more mentions of transpeople, and fewer and fewer mentions of bisexual people, both in the mainstream and in LGBT media.
I’ve noticed the same, actually. However, the question of “can a trans-person legally donate blood/organs” is… well, not answered at all, to my knowledge, because they don’t fit the expected binary box of “are you a male who has had sex with another male?”
U.S. websites tend toward overblown claims (100 lives saved per donor...) that have made it nearly impossible for me to figure this out. It appears there are 15,000 donors per year here, and around 28,000 lives saved, implying it’s more than 1 life per donor (but not 5 or 10, as I had assumed).
I am currently signed up to be a donor, and I’m not really trying to wiggle out so much as figure out which option is better.
nods I tried looking at U.S. websites and found a pretty consistent “up to 8 lives saved” and anywhere from 40-100 that benefit from tissue donation. The big missing factor in my research was how often an organ donor actually ends up donating. Everything I read hinted at less than 50%, but I never found a firm figure.
Google needs a “-Propaganda” or “+Science” tag :)
If number one is part of your true rejection, look to see if there are head-only cryonics available in your area.
I’d thought that signing up for both organ donation and even head-only cryonics leads to battles over one’s body- the necessary preparations are quite different. I’d be happy to find I’m mistaken, though.
My research via CI and Alcor suggests you are correct. I don’t have sources offhand, but should be easy to find on their websites.
What orthonormal said—I was told that the circulatory system was used to get the crypopreservant into the brain and this rendered the other organs unusable.
You’re under 18.
If you avoid cigarettes, meth and drunk drivers you should be able to live damn near forever, unless we completely f* up and lose our drive or our ability to continue to advance technologically. By the time you’re in your late 30s or early 40s you’ll have a much better idea. If you’re still typing on the Internets (in whatever form it is 20 years from now) you’ll be able to make a MUCH better informed decision. If you’re sleeping in a rough shelter and hunting/gathering for food with what’s left of civilization, well the cryonics wouldn’t have helped anyway (the corpsicles will have been thawed and eaten with the rest of the stored food).