Thank you for all of your work on doing this. I really appreciate it.
Sure there is plenty of evidence.
Here is a good starting point: http://chronopause.com/chronopause.com/index.php/2011/02/23/does-personal-identity-survive-cryopreservation/index.html
I think nanotech is "magic" in the same way that uploading is "magic". Neither exists but there's no good reason to think that either wouldn't be possible imo.
What am I missing about this?
Sadly, Bederson’s evidence is mostly anecdotal and therefore not very trustworthy.
However, several of the parameters would be likely to be unaffected by increased funding: Cryonics is continuously legalCryonic revival is permitted
However, several of the parameters would be likely to be unaffected by increased funding:
On the contrary, I very much expect that more funding would help with these factors. The success of cryonics is limited by sociopolitical factors, and the more people who have buy-in, the more likely people are to be protected when in long-term cryopreservation.
The intention of my post was not to encourage reductions in funding into cryonics; rather, to increase awareness among LessWrongers readers about anti-aging.
This is an admirable goal. =)
I strongly support anti-aging research. I'm not clear on what your criticism is of cryonics. Perhaps I missed where you explained why you think that cryonics will not work? For example, where in the Drake equation does your probability differ from Steve Harris's or Mike Perry's?
Also, you point out the large number of organizations and companies involved in aging research. Surely the fact that there are way fewer in cryonics means that it is has merit from an underfunding perspective?
You might get better responses at New Cryonet or r/cryonics. The cryonics community doesn't seem to be very active here.
It's a tricky question and depends a lot on your circumstances.
First, there are often cheaper options available. For example, CI is cheaper than Alcor. See https://www.reddit.com/r/cryonics/comments/8ymikj/oc_how_much_does_is_cost_to_preserve_a_brain/
If you have a terminal illness and don't have enough money for even cheaper options like CI, you can try to get in touch with the Venturists, who might be able to vouch for your situation and coordinate a fundraiser (they have done this in the past). Their website seems to be down but I think they are still active: https://web.archive.org/web/20170721065012/http://www.venturist.info/
Best of luck. I'm really sorry for your situation. It's a shame that cryonics is ridiculed and stigmatized and as a result the costs are much higher and this kind of situation is so hard to coordinate.
Upvoted -- I agree that the probability is higher if you do cryonics.
However, a lot of the framing of this discussion is that "if you choose cryonics, you are opening up Pandora's box because of the possibility of worse-than-death outcomes." This triggers all sort of catastrophic cognitions and causes people to have even more of an ugh field around cryonics. So I wanted to point out that worse than death outcomes are certainly still possible even if you don't do cryonics.
Well, this is certainly a reasonable response. But if there is a mechanism to decrease the probability that a worse-than-death outcome would occur so that people who had expressed these concerns are more likely to want to do brain preservation and more people could be a part of the future, that seems like an easy win. I don't think people are particularly fungible.
I think I did not explain my proposal clearly enough. What I'm claiming is if that you could see intermediate steps suggesting that a worst-type future is imminent, or merely crosses your probability threshold as "too likely", then you could enumerate those and request to be removed from biostasis then. Before those who are resuscitating you would have a chance to do so.