propater

AFAIK, the main obstacles are

• the toxic soil, due to high levels of perchlorates (shipping soil would be prohibitively heavy and, given that arable land might come at a high premium in the coming century, might be a bad idea)
• high radiation on the surface due to lack of magnetic field,
• high energy requirements to combat the cold and lack of energy sources (due to distance from the sun and the presence of dust) which would probably require nuclear reactors and their fuel (which are extremely heavy to ship)
• dust, which is a health and mechanical hazard
• low gravity
• shipping enough people is prohibitively heavy too
• an enormous supply chain to produce and ship all that

Is anyone aware of any article discussing scalability issues?

I agree that from an individual standpoint it is rational to sign up for cryonics but is it really a good idea for mankind in general to massively sign up for cryonics? Would it not create an awful drag on the economy that would delay or maybe even prevent mankind to acquire the technology necessary for reviving the "dead"?

From what I read on the business model of Alcor and CI, the costs of sustaining cryonisation are paid by the dividends/interests of a small capital constituted through life insurance. If more and more people enter cryonisation, there will be more and more of that capital... (read more)

Same here. This does not strike me as a good argument at all... We can reverse it to argue against signing up for cryonics :

"Even if I sign up for cryonics, there will still be some other worlds in wich I didn't and in wich "I" am dying of cancer."

Or

"Even if don't sign up, there are still other worlds in wich I did."

Maybe there is something about me actually making the choice to sign up in this world altering/constraining the overall probability distribution and making some outcomes less and less probable in the overall distribution...

I am new to this side and I still have to search through it more thoroughfuly... (read more)