cryonics

Now on to the next set of steps to try and get people to sign up for cryonics...

If this works, could it give some credibility to cryonics?

Do you know how hard it is to sell cryonics, life-extension research, etc?

You can strive to achieve as much as possible today, as well as attempt a second chance at life through cryonics.

You could spend all days coming up with possible reasons for not defrosting cryonics patients in the future.

It also sidesteps the issue of people who plan/want to live indefinitely through advances in biotech, cryonics, mind uploading, etc.

I got my policy through the only Alcor member insurance agent, Rudi Hoffman, and if you're interested in cryonics, he's probably the best introduction you can get.

Which brings me to the question: What evidence would convince you that cryonics is worthwhile?If scanning electron micrographs of cryopreserved mammal brain tissue showed intact nanostructure, would that convince you?

And you're more than welcome to believe in it, just like any other faith...I don't think cryonics in its current form is likely to work, but I do think the probability of it working is high enough that it's worth signing up.

The point of picking those examples is not that they are the perfect tests of skepticism; it's that most of the Less Wrong readership has thought hard about cryonics, many-worlds, nanotech, and AI, and so they are some reasonable examples.

One recommendation from people in the cryonics industry in the past has been that when you are on the final downward spiral to stop eating and drinking so as to time the end yourself and thus ensure much better odds of a good preservation, organized and timely.

However you need to remember that no matter how low a probability you assign to your successful defrosting, this will be strictly greater than the probability of successfully being alive in the future if you go with the default, non-cryonics option of irrevocable destruction.