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