Upvoted, but I can’t begin to imagine how you take your data to be an argument that cryonics is too costly. 0.5% of planetary GDP to be a post-death society?
Also, a society which actually embraced cryonics would save huge amounts on horribly painful and expensive medical treatments that have no hope of saving the patient but only keep them alive for another month on a ventilator. There’s no way that a society which actually understood cryonics would be spending more money on healthcare, net, than we do.
You’re not post-death until you can both revive them and stop them from dying again (which will cost a lot more than just 0.5%). If all you do is revive them to be normal living humans again, then per the Gompertz curve, you buy very few years until something that hits the brain results in effective information-death.
I can’t begin to imagine how you take your data to be an argument that cryonics is too costly.
It’s not too costly for me, but I strongly suspect it is too costly for politicians, bureaucrats, and the “average man” given the current level of evidence. I also strongly suspect we are quite some way away from reaching the level of evidence that would require; although I dearly hope that some day we actually can manage a post-death society.
Traditional funerals in the US cost an average of around $7,000. So if we’re talking about substituting this, it does not seem like it would increase the total burden on the economy, at least in countries where this is already being paid for on a routine basis.
ETA: Here is the most official looking source I could find with google for the cost of a funeral. A metal casket is apparently a large part of the cost.
Count me as suspicious of the idea that people would stop having funerals or some equivalent ritual if cryonics replaced “pulling the plug”—at least if it became common. Though obviously this would displace the “body preparation” costs associated with a funeral.
Which must surely be by far the bulk of the costs. With no body, all that’s needed is for someone to hire a hall in which people can assemble and someone to officiate. The British Humanist Association do that for £180 tops.
Still, I’ve not been able to find any details online about any kind of post-cryopreservation ceremonies for loved ones—anyone know anything?
Which must surely be by far the bulk of the costs. With no body, all that’s needed is for someone to hire a hall...
Good point, I had previously overestimated the relative share that’s due to body preparation. (I had forgotten such costs would include the burial and probably the funeral march!)
True, but you have to adjust that downwards based on how many people actually have a funeral. A quick peruse of Google suggests ~1/3rd of the US goes with cremation instead. That said, if we can get the cost of cryonics down to the cost of a funeral, I think it would indeed be a vastly easier sell to a lot of people :)
Upvoted, but I can’t begin to imagine how you take your data to be an argument that cryonics is too costly. 0.5% of planetary GDP to be a post-death society?
Also, a society which actually embraced cryonics would save huge amounts on horribly painful and expensive medical treatments that have no hope of saving the patient but only keep them alive for another month on a ventilator. There’s no way that a society which actually understood cryonics would be spending more money on healthcare, net, than we do.
You’re not post-death until you can both revive them and stop them from dying again (which will cost a lot more than just 0.5%). If all you do is revive them to be normal living humans again, then per the Gompertz curve, you buy very few years until something that hits the brain results in effective information-death.
It’s not too costly for me, but I strongly suspect it is too costly for politicians, bureaucrats, and the “average man” given the current level of evidence. I also strongly suspect we are quite some way away from reaching the level of evidence that would require; although I dearly hope that some day we actually can manage a post-death society.
Traditional funerals in the US cost an average of around $7,000. So if we’re talking about substituting this, it does not seem like it would increase the total burden on the economy, at least in countries where this is already being paid for on a routine basis.
ETA: Here is the most official looking source I could find with google for the cost of a funeral. A metal casket is apparently a large part of the cost.
Count me as suspicious of the idea that people would stop having funerals or some equivalent ritual if cryonics replaced “pulling the plug”—at least if it became common. Though obviously this would displace the “body preparation” costs associated with a funeral.
Which must surely be by far the bulk of the costs. With no body, all that’s needed is for someone to hire a hall in which people can assemble and someone to officiate. The British Humanist Association do that for £180 tops.
Still, I’ve not been able to find any details online about any kind of post-cryopreservation ceremonies for loved ones—anyone know anything?
Good point, I had previously overestimated the relative share that’s due to body preparation. (I had forgotten such costs would include the burial and probably the funeral march!)
I doubt there are any traditions yet. There just haven’t been enough people cryopreserved.
I’m looking for what people have actually done in the absence of such traditions.
True, but you have to adjust that downwards based on how many people actually have a funeral. A quick peruse of Google suggests ~1/3rd of the US goes with cremation instead. That said, if we can get the cost of cryonics down to the cost of a funeral, I think it would indeed be a vastly easier sell to a lot of people :)