I have not signed up to be cryopreserved only because it is hypothetically possible that it may work. I have signed up because I believe there is a credible possibility that it will work, which is worth more to me than the cost, amounting to approximately 0.5% of my annual income.
There is evidence that cryonics may work, such as the successful cryopreservation of small multicellular organisms with intact memory upon revival and a clear trend of technological progress that may eventually enable repair of damage at the molecular level.
You may look at the evidence and conclude that there is essentially zero chance cryonics may work: the brain is so complex and sensitive that you feel personality and memories must irrevocably be lost through cryopreservation. Cryonics therefore does not make sense to you. I look at the same evidence and feel that there is a credible possibility that it works, maybe as good as 5-10%. Cryonics therefore makes sense to me, especially as the alternative is burial or cremation. Current evidence is consistent with a wide range of probabilities, spanning from the very small to the rather large.
Given the current state of uncertainty, it is natural that people reach different conclusions about the feasibility of cryonics. It is also natural that people assign different value to that possibility. Some may say it is not worthwhile whatever the possibility; others like me think it is worthwhile even if the chance of cryonics working would be as low as 0.1%. As a result, opinions on the value of cryonics vary greatly.
Slowing the aging rate down is clearly preferable to cryonics, if a choice must be made. Fortunately, I can afford to do both without problems. To me, it is great that different possibilities for overcoming the problem of aging and premature death are being explored and I am happy that cryonics exists as a last resort to avoid burial or cremation, should it not be possible to overcome aging in my lifetime.
As an analogy, just because there is evidence that you can reverse cells to a pluripotent state through epigenetic reprogramming doesn’t mean it will be feasible for humans to do the same exact deal. It has minimal to no bearing on the odds such a deal will translate at all. Why that changes the odds in any meaningful sense should be explained in detail.
All we have is good evidence of life extension in terms of maximum lifespan. Not intended to be a semantic squibble.
There is no clear trend. We’ve been through many cycles of exuberance. There is a lot of noise.
Losing closer to ~1% after-tax income compounds into a very large amount of money over time. I’d say that’s roughly a million over a lifetime with a conservative NPV assumption of 5% just as much as close to a 2% inflation rate is a huge amount over time. Compare this to paying for cryonics later when there is better information and the financials make far more sense.
For some people, that may be way more than 1% after tax. The lost opportunity cost makes no sense financially unless you’re absolutely certain of such a high probability which appears to be an overestimate. I’m not sure you’re really playing the odds correctly with respect to the finances involved. If you can’t manage finite resources well - you may be lowering your chances significantly.
Yes, indeed it does. And losing ~80% after-tax income on my primary residence, vacation home, travel, car, books, firewood, restaurants, food, potato chips, liquorice, wines, personal trainer, streaming services, charity and other expenses compounds into a very, very large amount of money over time.
I am happy with my choices as I hope you are with yours.
As much as I would like to continue our discussion, I will leave it here and hope that you and other readers could derive some benefit from my writings and the references I provided. Cryonics - or biostasis as some prefer to call it - is very much a developing field and science will eventually shed more light on the feasibility, or lack thereof, of human cryopreservation.
To be clear, I’m not telling anyone how they should allocate highly variable discretionary spending for their hard-earned money and I’m glad you are happy with how you spend money, but I’m merely applying it to the cost-effectiveness vs odds deal when it comes to an obligatory payment over time with rough assumptions and how one can maximize bets. Socioeconomic factors robustly are associated with life extension.
If it makes you happy to buy hope in the form of what appears to be at best a lottery ticket, as opposed to an investment later on if the situation changes, then by all means. Not being facetious. That’s literally more of a personal preference.
Actually, I would like you to you tell us how we should spend (or save) our hard-earned money for the biggest effects on longevity. Your advice seems to be some of the best I’ve come across here.
I would recommend against that. The results of the hyperbaric oxygen treatment were hyped up and misinterpreted by Efrati and the media. There is no good evidence of it having anti-aging effects.
The first study you linked to is the Israeli study by Efrati. It’s the one that sparked the hype about HBOT therapy being anti-aging. However the study did not show effects indicating that it is beneficial for longevity. The study did show an increase in the average telomere length of blood leukocytes. But that doesn’t mean the HBOT increased the telomere length of the blood leukocytes. There are other explanations for the findings such as changes in the flux of leukocytes from tissues to the blood. To state that it is anti-aging based on that study is misleading and nothing but hype. The news articles about it were almost all just hype.
Regarding the other two studies you linked to. Yes they are from other teams. They do show some interesting effects and HBOT can certainly be beneficial for some conditions. But I have seen nothing that would indicate strongly that it may have benefits for longevity in healthy adults.
And, while I’m behind on the science, my understanding is that most geoscientists don’t think that telomere’s are really a limiting for humans at this point (given 120 year lifespan). It seems you’re up on the science - is that an accurate assessment?
Yes, while I am no expert on telomeres, and am not fully up to date on this, I think it is generally accepted that telomere length is not a major problem in the sense of it limiting lifespan if we’re talking about 120 years or less. Note that humans have shorter telomeres than rodents!
Having said that, even though telomere length may not be a huge problem in terms of limiting life span there are still definite harms associated with having shorter telomeres. Critically short telomeres cause various problems, such as DNA damage, that contribute to aging. Therefore it is beneficial to maintain telomere length with aging even though the increased length is not really needed for continuing cell proliferation.
Looking at an european cryonics organization, Tomorrow Bio: https://www.tomorrow.bio/, the costs can be around $50 a month for some, with an insurance policy. Meaning, you can fund it with life insurance. So the compounded difference doesn’t have to be that great.
What else are you going to do with your billions after you die? You might as well try a moonshot. I completely see his point of view. In the end, his fees may advance the science… Maybe…
In all, five rats received a vitrified-then-thawed kidney in a study whose results were published this month in Nature Communications. It’s the first time scientists have shown it’s possible to successfully and repeatedly transplant a life-sustaining mammalian organ after it has been rewarmed from this icy metabolic arrest. Outside experts unequivocally called the results a seminal milestone for the field of organ preservation.
“It’s historic,” said Mehmet Toner, a biomedical engineer at Massachusetts General Hospital and a Harvard Medical School professor working in organ cryopreservation. “This is the beginning of a very exciting journey.”
I will look at this. Hibernation is interesting because
a) It involves reduced acetylation of the histone and hence is a good study of macro changes to the histone.
b) Metabolic Syndrome is similar to hibernation and perhaps a human response to stimulation that in other creatures would result in hibernation.
