Originally Posted by
Luke
I find the argument that it is a big risk to be rather empty, when you consider that the alternative is to die. You are essentially reducing your risk from 100% to some unknown fraction of 100%. Logically, this is the more conservative choice.
Societal factors can be influenced during your lifetime. You can't control them, but you can have a positive influence of some kind on them. The goals most favorable to awakening from cryonics are a humanitarian, stable, technologically advanced society. Aren't most of us supposedly working towards that end anyway? Wouldn't it be a positive factor towards achieving these goals if everyone was signed up for cryonics?
The choice between a baby and a caveman might seem like it should be the baby, until you realize that if you choose the caveman nobody has to die. A baby being unconcieved in the first place is the most moral outcome if the population is approaching its limit. (And what anthropologist or historian wouldn't jump at the chance to interview a real live caveman? You wouldn't destroy an antique vase, why would an antique human be any different?)
Note that cryonics doesn't need to be just for the rich, and shouldn't be. Economies of scale are highly significant when it comes to cold storage. Thanks to basic geometry, a large containment vessel is far more efficient than a small one. If you increase the volume by 1000, you only increase surface area by 100, multiplying your efficiency by 10. So if one person can be stored at $100/month, a million people can be stored for $1/month. A billion people can be stored at $0.10 a month. With additional insulation (also dramatically more efficient on larger containers) the cost could be reduced even further.