tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post7099064485038610342..comments2024-03-18T11:50:24.712+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: The Cryonics Dilemma (0)John Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-35251289535496259592012-03-29T20:31:38.117+01:002012-03-29T20:31:38.117+01:00Money given to Cryonics organizations also goes to...Money given to Cryonics organizations also goes to research into organ preservation that can help the living. Money also goes back into the economy through employee incomes, operational costs, taxes, etc.ShannonVyff(We_live_to_love:) )https://www.blogger.com/profile/13816268946295133384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-43501231134520798872012-03-09T06:20:34.982+00:002012-03-09T06:20:34.982+00:00I think that for some people there is a concern th...I think that for some people there is a concern that simply by refusing to give up the ghost at the appointed time there is a moral cost arising directly from that. That would be (in principle) entirely unconnected to the financial opportunity costs, units of suffering, and other such concerns that might motivate a pragmatist.<br /><br />But one could just as easily have the opposite concern: Perhaps by refusal to give up the ghost on principle you are creating a moral good rather than incurring a cost. Perhaps there is moral goodness to freezing that is unconnected to actual survival, reduced suffering, or economic benefits.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03839692078152193518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-43538615975983596102012-03-08T17:26:25.299+00:002012-03-08T17:26:25.299+00:00I would have thought that there must be a moral va...I would have thought that there must be a moral value choice in doing anything. It would be reasonable for most people to suppose that there are others more deserving or more in need of the resources owned by any particular individual. Therefore that particular individual (especially if retired) is obliged by moral constraints to terminate his life so that his posessions could be used by more deserving people.<br /><br />Less extreme, the $30k cruise could be rejected in favour of giving the $30k to someone else either because they could do something worthwhile with it (eg medical research) or some relief work (eg helping starving people in overpopulated countries).<br /><br />But where does the buck stop. Should the medical researcher consider giving his windfall to the starving people if his research would only give succour to old people? Or should the starving people find someone even worse off (starving people also suffering from AIDS, for example)? What about all the people working on the cruise ship who would lose their jobs if everyone took this point of view?<br /><br />I think it is an insoluble dilemma. Communism was obviously invented in an attempt to resolve it: "From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" may not be a part of the Communist manifesto, but it sums it up. But I think this idea has now largely been discredited.<br /><br />If cryonics is service that should not be bought because morally the funds should otherwise be given away, why is it singled out? Because it may not work? The same can be said for many surgical operations. They don't and couldn't have guarantees. <br /><br />The same can definitely be said about paying for the care of elderly people. Many elderly people exhaust their entire estates in paying nursing home or other care fees. Some legislatures in the past had the idea of exterminating terminally sick elderly people rather than let them buy care. Considering cryonics to be morally indefensible on account of the resources used seems very similar to this idea.John de Rivazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13207087813481855643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-19868131492295664282012-03-08T15:56:39.778+00:002012-03-08T15:56:39.778+00:00What about a person who throws themselves on a liv...What about a person who throws themselves on a live grenade to protect their friends? Belonging to a group of friends with a shared ethic to do so (i.e. whoever is closest/spots it first dies) would enhance your chance of survival, even if the cost of joining such a group is that you must share that ethic/precommitment yourself.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03839692078152193518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-15205976015773946272012-03-08T15:25:41.671+00:002012-03-08T15:25:41.671+00:00One important point here, and I guess I haven'...One important point here, and I guess I haven't been clear enough about it here, is that the use of the "opportunity cost" terminology here is distinct from the typical economic/prudential understanding of that term. By opportunity cost I just mean anything that is potentially morally valuable. So there could be some moral value to self-sacrifice that would be lost by choosing to undergo cryopreservation. Whether someone experiences (or has the possibility of experiencing) that counterfactual seems less relevant if the concern is with moral value.<br /><br />Also, since the decision to finance personal cryonics is presumably something you need to precommit to (through insurance or once off payments) there might be some opportunity cost that you could experience during the course of your lifetime.<br /><br />Finally, this post is just an introduction. I was attempting to provide a basic analysis of the decision into which actual arguments about the pros and cons of cryonics could fit. There's no desire, at this stage, to pass judgment on the kinds of arguments or considerations that could be brought to bear on the decision.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-40968232468095712472012-03-08T14:44:22.285+00:002012-03-08T14:44:22.285+00:00Maybe I have not properly grapsed this, but I find...Maybe I have not properly grapsed this, but I find it hard to understand the idea of "opportunity cost" of cryopreservation. It is easy enough to work out in terms of "Shall I go on a $30k cruise or fund someone else's education" because you can experience either the cruise or observing the someone else getting educated. But if the "opportunity cost" can only be observed as history once (and if) you are revived, then this has created an impossible paradox. (ie if you spend the money on the opportunity you cannot observe it) You could certainly sacrifice yourself for the opportunity. This what Mohammad Atta did when he flew a plane load of terrified passengers crashing into the World Trade Center, for the opportunity of supporting his religious beliefs. But he could not observe the result. For him, the attrocity never really happened, as it was outside his lifespan. The same applies to all martyrs and terrorists through history.John de Rivazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13207087813481855643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-55219105379725347112012-03-08T02:02:40.918+00:002012-03-08T02:02:40.918+00:00Opportunity costs are external to the individual w...Opportunity costs are external to the individual whose decision it is, so if we want to be fair the scope should now include externalities of both kinds. Does cryonics create jobs? Is it an educational opportunity for participants? Does it stimulate the economy?<br /><br />Obviously we don't want to commit the broken window fallacy by appealing to the maintenance costs themselves as solely benefiting the economy through job creation. But note that when a person is cryopreserved most of the money goes into a dynasty trust, to which the cryopreserved person's existence lends a powerful ongoing reason for that trust to continue to exist and invest in capital. That's a sort of legal and public good, and the cost of the LN2 could be insignificant in comparison. Depending on whether these kinds of long-term trusts are a good thing, cryonics could be harmful or beneficial to the economy. In addition, cryonics trusts would have strong incentive to invest in or donate to medical research, which would have spillover benefits in reduced harm to non-cryonics patients.<br /><br />Another potential spillover benefit would be how it affects end of life care. Cryonicists are less likely to extend their lives by mechanisms that will result in neural degradation, and may desire to hasten the onset of clinical death to this end. While philosophically distinct from assisted suicide / right to die arguments (which are motivated by suffering), this is practically and politically complementary, and has the same result (reduced suffering) regardless of if cryonics itself works. Thus someone who desires to reduce suffering might prefer that cryonics become the standard practice.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03839692078152193518noreply@blogger.com