Currently spending time on derisking research (see derisked.org). Previously worked at BERI, EpiFor/FHI, CEA, IPA. Generally US-based.
Josh Jacobson
Karma: 569
I really appreciate the detailed explanation here and expression of the level of confidence in your belief. Thanks so much for this!
Mid 30s, and yes
Are you open to auditing existing math (vs. observing and commenting on real-time creation)?
[Question] Is the length of the Covid-19 incubation period likely to be affected by whether you are vaccinated?
I’ve left relevant comments on a number of the sections, but I think it’s worth strongly emphasizing that you can have a much different experience than this sequence outlines! And having this different experience can be a very reasonable choice to make.
As someone financially constrained, who has high uncertainty on his finances and the state of technology 20+ years from now:
-
I pursued term life insurance; it was fast, easy and cheap. I pay ~$10 / month for my cryo coverage, with the rate locked in for the next 20 years. All three providers I moved forward with were compatible with cryo, around the same price, and easy to work with. The policy I settled on is with Haven Life. I expect every insurance policy is compatible with the Cryonics Institute; they work with you to find a solution, and there are many. See this comment for why term life insurance can be a good choice: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NPDSB3WEEAb8Swuyc/4-1-types-of-life-insurance?commentId=5sXoDYZzRr2AcafeF
-
I went with CI, and paid the lifetime membership fee. A post in this sequence estimates that cost as equivalent to $2 / month. If I accept that, my total financial outlay is $12 / month for cryo coverage for the next 20 years; this is much cheaper (although also potentially less feature-rich) than the over $100 / month this sequence provides guidance to obtaining.
-
Going with CI can be a very reasonable decision. Not only can it be significantly more affordable, but I personally don’t believe there are meaningful differences in cryopreservation quality (it’s all very bad and will require appx. equally advanced technology to reanimate). Furthermore, if you have short timelines, financial sustainability is less likely to matter between the two (it’s more likely both last for 30 years than for 500 years).
-
Many of the “optional additional steps” were a built-in part of the CI sign-up process, in my case.
Additionally, there are many more cryopreservation options and optional next steps you can potentially take. CI informs you of some of those (Alcor may as well) and there’s a lot of unique information shared in this FB group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cryonicists/
-
FWIW, I do not think that Alcor > CI represents a consensus opinion; when I investigated this question ~1 year ago, it seemed likely to me that there was little difference other than cost (CI wins) and financial sustainability (Alcor wins).
I personally don’t believe most other differences are meaningful (especially e.g. profusion quality), although I’m not an expert on many aspects of this.
It’s my impression that most, if not all, insurance carriers can be made compatible with CI at least. They have a number of acceptable options, one of which all 3 of the carriers I investigated were happy to abide by.
Beyond eventual self-funding, there are other reasons to potentially consider a term policy:
-
Even if you do not expect to self-fund, if your financial assets will increase in the future and are low right now, the much lower term-cost may be worthwhile. I pay $10 / month for my term coverage, and I would not have opted in to the ~$100/month average you project elsewhere.
-
If you expect that technological progress will greatly increase during your lifetime, e.g. short AGI timelines, or curing all disease, you may be primarily interested in coverage for the next ~20 years vs. after that time.
-
The Cryonics Institute includes a Living Will, Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and Religious Objection to Autopsy form in their sign-up materials. Only one of the first two is required, and the objection to autopsy form is also not required.
My experience applying for term life insurance with ~3 carriers was all required a medical exam.
FWIW, this, and similar practices that imply dual citizenship isn’t allowed, anecdotally seem to be a very common (perhaps the standard) situation. For example, the US doesn’t expressly allow dual citizenship, and there’s language in multiple places about renouncing other citizenships, but I’ve seen estimates that ~5-10% of US citizens have another citizenship and multiple US Congressmen are public about having multiple citizenships as well. I haven’t heard about any US enforcement against multiple citizenships.
Having looked into many citizenships and residency programs, this situation is common amongst a high percentage of them, and outside of a few rare country exceptions (not present here) everyone seems to move forward being dual citizens without issue despite this. I do wish laws were clear and explicit about these sort of things, and that there was express permission for multiple citizenship, but it does seem that for a long time across many (most?) international jurisdictions multiple citizenships have been and are allowed in practice, even when commonly ‘officially’ disallowed.
For example, I mentioned this in response to a comment about Netherlands citizenship on the original post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jHnFBHrwiNb5xvLBM/?commentId=psZcBFaZfQnzJDXeq
I do think, however, moving forward on this does require some willingness to accept that in-practice behavior differs from what may be implied by a country’s official regulation, and that isn’t a fit for everyone. For what it’s worth, to me, after learning quite a bit about this issue moving forward doesn’t feel messy at all, but I certainly understand others feeling differently.
I don’t think it’d be very annoying at all. If, for example, you weren’t doing significant economic activity in Panama on an ongoing basis, your US taxes would be unaffected and you wouldn’t need to file any taxes in Panama (pretty confident).
If you’re aiming for citizenship like I would be, then the main work is:
The upfront time and monetary investment
Showing investment / interest in Panama and knowledge about it for the 5 year later evaluation (probably involves at least 2 more visits to Panama during that time)
Then renewing your passport every 5-10 years
Sorry about that, and thanks for letting me know. This should now be resolved.
Assessing Interest in Group Trip to Secure Panamanian Residency [Imminent Rules Change]
A lawyer who works on Paraguayan citizenship responded to an email inquiry of mine saying that you must reside in Paraguay for 183+ days of each year in order to pursue citizenship. I don’t think this information is definitive, but it suggests another reason why that program many not be attractive.
UPDATE: Many sources confirm that the main difference between the programs is that Panama’s provides a path to citizenship without ever staying very long in-country, while Paraguay’s is maintainable as a permanent residency with only short occasional visits, but to gain Paraguayan citizenship you must spend the majority of 3 years in-country. One source for this (though I’ve looked at many): https://nomadcapitalist.com/second-passport/paraguay/
FWIW, a lawyer I’m speaking to about these options says that Paraguay’s program is expected to change in the near future as well (Panama’s is ending); they sit on the Paraguayan committee that’s working on amending the law. See this about Panama: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rEbe9o9GErpKgqTMc/assessing-interest-in-group-trip-to-secure-panamanian
I redid the visualization of this on Tableau so it’d be colorblind-friendly and more filterable: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/josh3425/viz/RevisualizationofRobBensingersSurveyResultGraph/Dashboard1
No double taxation issue then would be quite the detriment to the appeal of Israel from a taxation perspective. Do you happen to have a source or more info about that?
Thanks for noting this information with more granularity than I provided / had.
Thanks for that link! I do think the lack of taxation can be quite a lot of money in certain circumstances.
Thanks for noting this. FWIW, I think that sentence was talking about the entire process, not just preliminary steps.
My guess is that this isn’t going to be worthwhile to look into in this case (facing a complicated, deadly disease with many, many medicines being taken for it, and a fragile health status) but I appreciate the suggestion.