X-Message-Number: 1497
From:	Ralph Merkle <>
Date:	Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:02:56 PST

Estimates of Technical Success and Survival Strategies in Cryonics

There has been some discussion about the varying estimates of 
technical success that people assign to cryonics, the impact of 
those estimates on the resulting strategies adopted by the 
individual, and the consequent utility of those strategies.

Success is more likely the greater the expected future improvements 
in medical technology.  Future medical technology utilizing 
advances in nanotechnology and other areas should be dramatically 
superior. The difference should be greater than the difference 
between the medical technology of a few centuries ago and that of 
today.   Acceptance of nanotechnology by the technical community is 
rapidly increasing.  ("Nanotechnology" in this context means 
"molecular nanotechnology" or "molecular manufacturing.")  Thus, a 
wider acceptance and understanding of nanotechnology and its 
implications will cause more people to conclude that cryonics is 
more likely to work.

The following analysis should hold for factors which increase the 
estimated technical likelihood of success.

A simple model might be based on two main factors:  (1) assume that 
each person estimates, as best they can, the probability of 
technical success based on currently available data and (2)  each 
person decides their own individual threshold probability.  If 
the individual success estimate exceeds the individual threshold, 
then the person signs up for cryonics or otherwise becomes active:  
we will call these people the active population.  If the success 
estimate is below the threshold, the person does not pursue 
cryonics: we will call these people the inactive population.

Most people are inactive:  they have a low success estimate or a 
high threshold, or both.  The active population would be those who 
have a relatively high success estimate and/or have a relatively 
low threshold.

This analysis neglects non-rational considerations, or simply 
assumes that such non-rational considerations are absorbed into the 
setting of the threshold.  An individual utterly opposed to 
cryonics on non-technical grounds would adopt a threshold of 100%, 
and would therefore not become active even if cryonics were proven 
to work.  In any event, this simplified model clearly captures only 
some of the considerations involved in a decision to become (or not 
become) part of the active population.  Despite these obvious 
limitations it is likely to be helpful in providing a clearer 
picture of at least some of the factors involved.

After absorbing the idea of nanotechnology and the implications 
this has for future medical capabilities, an individual who 
previously assigned a low chance of success to cryonics would 
afterwards usually assign a higher chance.  For example, a person 
who previously assigned a 0.1% chance of success to cryonics might 
afterwards assign a 10% chance of success, while a person who 
previously assigned a 0.001% chance of success might afterwards 
assign a 0.1% chance of success.

The first-order effect of this shift would be to increase the 
active population.

Existing members of the active population, upon learning about 
nanotechnology, would likely increase their success estimates.  
This would not directly change the size of the active population 
(they were already active) but might alter their strategies (see 
below).

While individual success estimates would increase, it's not obvious 
that the active population as a whole would increase its overall 
average success estimate (although it might).  This is because 
members of the inactive population would increase their success 
estimates above threshold, and would thus add new members to the 
active population whose estimates were just above threshold.   For 
example, active people who previously felt there was a 10% chance 
of success might increase their estimate to (say) 70%, but at the 
same time there would be a larger pool of inactive people who had 
previously thought there was a 0.1% chance of success and who 
revised their estimate of success upwards to 10%.  If we assume (for 
the sake of simplicity) a uniform threshold of 1%, this shift would 
result in a net increase in the active population, an increase in 
the success estimate among long-time members of the active 
population, but no great shift in the average success estimate of 
members of the active population as a whole.   Further, the number 
of people who felt there was a 10% chance of success would increase, 
although the specific individuals who held this estimate would 
change.  (Note that the numbers used are for purposes of the example
only, and are unlikely to be accurate).

It might be presumed that individuals who assign a high probability 
of success to the technical aspects of cryonics would focus their 
activities on non-technical issues.  There are many non-technical 
issues of clear interest:  organizational stability, financial 
integrity, laws restricting or preventing cryonic suspension, 
etc.  Perhaps the dominant non-technical issue is acceptance of 
cryonics by the community at large and by the medical community in 
particular.  Such acceptance plays a crucial role in every 
interaction between the cryonics community and the social and legal 
institutions that limit our options for survival.  One of the most 
effective methods of securing such acceptance from the medical 
community is research showing that cryonics is technically 
feasible.  It would therefore be inaccurate to assume that 
individuals who assign a high probability of success to the 
technical aspects of cryonics would not have an interest in 
research.  One of the most effective methods of decreasing the risk 
of mortality in a cryonic suspension would be to conduct the 
suspension while the terminally ill patient was still relatively 
healthy, e.g., somewhat before (rather than somewhat after) 
"clinical death."  The suspension should also take place in a 
hospital setting, with the full cooperation and support of the 
medical establishment.  This happy state of affairs is unlikely to 
occur without fairly extensive research that analyzes cryonics in 
some detail, and provides a supportive body of evidence that even 
"conservative" physicians and hospital administrators will admit 
offers some reasonable chance of success.  (Note that 
"conservative" fully deserves quotes in this context.  The 
"conservative" opposition to cryonics is based on the concept that 
being burned to ashes or buried alive is a more "conservative" 
treatment than being frozen.  The absurdity of this concept would 
be most amusing were it not for its iron grip on many minds).

Even if we do assume that their is an "optimum" success estimate 
(optimum in the sense that it is maximally motivating), it would be 
a mistake to assume that technical factors which tend to increase 
estimates of success would decrease the population that is 
"optimally motivated".  It would more likely just change the 
members of the "optimally motivated" population, e.g., old members 
would become "too optimistic" while new members (who had previously 
viewed the whole thing as too unlikely to even bother considering 
it) would shift into the "optimally motivated" category.

The theory of "optimal motivation," implicit in some postings, 
appears rather dubious.  The concept that an individual who assigns 
an 80% chance of success to cryonics will view the resulting 20% 
chance of dying with equanimity seems open to question.  A more 
plausible conclusion is that there is a fairly broad range of 
success estimates which are compatible with fairly vigorous efforts 
to increase the chance of success, with the behavior of specific 
individuals being heavily influenced by very specific and personal 
factors.  Some people like to get involved and do things, others 
don't.

In summary:  factors that tend to increase estimates of the success 
of cryonics will result in upward shifts in distributions of the 
success estimates in individuals and in the general population.  
There might or might not be shifts in the active population taken as 
a whole.  Such shifts will likely be accompanied by some moderate 
shifts in emphasis among the available survival strategies in the 
active population as a whole, but are unlikely to lead to any 
dramatic overall shift in strategy.  Further, the increase in 
absolute numbers of the total active population will increase the 
absolute resources available for any specific strategy, even if the 
relative resources (as a percentage of the total) do in fact shift 
somewhat.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1497