[tt] Why is cryonics so unpopular?

[Stirling Westrup]

Eugen Leitl wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Aschwin de Wolf <aschwin.de.wolf at gmail.com> -----
> 
> From: Aschwin de Wolf <aschwin.de.wolf at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:23:23 -0700
> To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
> Subject: Why is cryonics so unpopular?
> 
> All (undisclosed recipient list),
> 
> I published a piece on my blog called "Why is cryonics so unpopular?".
> I do not claim to have a definite answer to this question but as
> should be clear, I do not find the technical feasibility argument all
> that persuasive. Other arguments fail to account for our dismal
> numbers as well. I encourage you think about this and raise the issue
> with others. I welcome contributions on this topic and will consider
> them for publication.
> 
> http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2008/05/29/why-is-cryonics-so-unpopular/
> 
> Thanks,
> Aschwin

I went to the site to leave my comments, but commenting was closed. So,
I'll do it here.

To start with, I've never had any doubts that cryonics was, in
principal, perfectly feasible. Nor do I doubt that a future technology
would be able to revive those currently being frozen.

What I do doubt is if the world will end up in a configuration that
would allow for those folks to be revived. One can think up many
scenarios (grey goo being a classic example) where they would never be
revived. That, however, is not why I'm not signed up for cryonics. After
all, it does greatly increase my chances of being revived after 'death'
over all scenarios I can think of.

No, my main reason for not signing up for cyronics is that it would
require me to move to the United States, and experience a marked
decrease in the quality of my life.

Why Americans don't sign up though, is a mystery to me.