TAKING IT WITH YOU

Referring to the recent WALL STREET JOURNAL article, the initial response on the CI forum was negative, but then morphed into a discussion of the best way to have a pot of gold at your feet upon reanimation. (Probably much to the dismay of CI President Ben Best!)

Ben wrote:

I dislike the attention that cryonicists devote to reanimation which, to my mind, is at the cost of actually being reanimated. I believe that a society which will be able to reanimate us will be so vastly richer and more technically advanced than anything that we can imagine that attempting to provide for future costs or wealth are a misuse of resources and energy. I believe it is comparable to "Otzi the Iceman" (the frozen mummy from about 3300 BC who was found in the Austrian Alps in 1991) trying to stash-away his copper axe for his benefit upon reanimation -- rather than using it to defend himself.

I believe that the two most serious problems cryonicists face are

  1. ensuring that they are cryopreserved under good conditions with minimal ischemic damage and
  2. ensuring their cryonics organization is strong enough to survive the social, political, legal, economic challenges that lie ahead.
Most cryonicists are NOT preserved under conditions of minimal ischemic damage, including a majority of those who have arranged for standby service (which they don't get, most of the time). I believe that we should expend our resources on dealing with these problems, both personally and co-operatively.

Instead, people assume that their cryopreservation and maintenance is a "done deal" and they focus on their future life -- "counting their chickens before they are hatched. We must put as much emphasis as possible on ensuring that our eggs are in good condition when they are preserved and are preserved well. If cryonics is wishful thinking, doing little to ensure a good preservation and focusing on reanimation is a compounding of wishful thinking upon wishful thinking.

Re: Reanimation Trust Money article in the Wall Street Journal

This article alternately fascinates me and horrifies me at the same time, as Ben's comment articulates. I'm not sure what amazes me more - that there apparently are several ridiculously wealthy individuals out there whose sole interest in cryonics is to... (wait for it...) make more money; or that it apparently doesn't even cross ANY of these people's minds that the best way to ensure that they do re-animate is to invest a smidgen of their embarrassing riches today, on research into proper cryopreservation. Or, heaven forbid, perhaps a smidgen on life extension, so these uber-wealthy individuals might not ever have to die at all. The article is one of the most fascinating displays of ultimate selfishness I've ever read.

Brian

Of course I agree with Ben that the wisest investment for future life is to put money into the organizations that are struggling to do cases. This may seem self-serving since I work in such an organization, but actually the place where I am is well-funded. Alcor and CI are the ones that could use cash to enhance service. However I don't necessarily agree with Ben that putting cash in a trust for the future "is comparable to Otzi the Iceman (the frozen mummy from about 3300 BC who was found in the Austrian Alps in 1991) trying to stash-away his copper axe for his benefit upon reanimation..." Or rather I suggest that his copper axe, in perfect condition, would be extremely valuable if it was recovered today. The lesson here would be that cryonauts who want to come back with some assets should rent extra storage space for 21st-century artifacts that are likely to have great historical value. This would free up their cash for investment in today's procedures, and everyone would benefit.

Charles Platt

(Groan). So now we are back to having all of the "Otzi's" saving their axes again, rather than using them for survival.

Ben

I suspect that it may be difficult to predict which artifacts will have value in the future, but this does seem worthy of serious consideration.

Ideally one would want something that has an exponential curve of value, ie adding most of it very shortly before its owner is reanimated. If it gets too valuable too early, then it is subject to the same sort of considerations about theft, legal or otherwise. Also money has to be deposited for renting the storage space. If the item becomes valuable, this may be eaten away to nothing by insurance premiums on the storage contractor.

John de Rivaz

I have a copy of the number 1 Superboy comic book and Mad comic book #3. This should secure my future. I wonder what happens to frozen comic books. Anyone wanting to buy mad comic number 4 can make offers; I don't want to be too wealthy.

Nelson

If true molecular nanotechnology comes to be then even a rare copper ax or superman comic could be duplicated to atomic precision thereby destroying the uniqueness of having an original, because what would set the original and the many copies apart? I am guessing that massively encrypted software patents (Microsoft operating system for assemblers), rare exotic atoms (Dupont Quantumite), or real estate (location, location, location...Century 21's close to earth asteroids) might be where the smart money goes????

I would think some money in the ever changing S&P 500 might allow for there to be some real value in companies who deal in these future assets I am sure there will be some things more valuable than others. Membership to exclusive organizations, permits to have children, bulk matter for assembly i.e. asteroids software for artificially intelligent assistants and designs to make the latest in anything

Dennis Kowalski