Yes, exactly, thank you. I am so sick of this story already. There's only one line you need to take away from the article: "Morgan Stanley makes no claims for the report's statistical vigour."
"Teenagers don't use twitter" is not even close to being true. It's more like, "One teenager and his friends don't use twitter", a classic case of biased sampling. To then jump to the conclusions - NO teenagers use twitter, ALL teenagers prefer text messaging - is not only idiotic, but demonstrably false.
So your argument is that the best possible thing you could do with a large sum of cash upon your demise is to gamble away on the vanishingly small chance that a very distant and almost magically technologically advanced society will "resurrect" you?
It's a matter of opportunity cost. What do you have to give up, in order to have this miniscule chance? Which is most valuable:
- putting your kids through college for sure
- financially assisting your still living loved ones for sure
- paying for expensive life saving surgery for someone who can't afford it for sure
- investing in what amounts to a lottery ticket that pays out only in a tiny percentage of potential future universes
Even if I was completely disinterested in the fate of the rest of humanity, I think I'd still choose to go out with a bang now, for sure, than to throw my hard earned cash into a futile attempt to keep me fresh in the freezer.
- First off, there's a close to zero chance of a successful revival. Pretty much all of the major problems with thawing (like, let's rebuild your severely damaged brain) are pushed off onto future generations to solve. Not to mention curing whatever killed you in the first place. But let's pretend the future is magic, and this can work...
- Who pays for this? And no, I'm not talking about the freezing. The article presumes we can just use life insurance to pay for cryonics (and not say, to support your presently alive loved ones). But who pays for your future miraculous revival? Even in the super advanced future, presumably a complex procedure like reconstructing a human brain won't exactly be a cheap one. Not to mention all the medical care you'd need for recovery (and don't forget about all those people who just froze their heads, they'll need whole new bodies!). Why exactly are the people of the future so eager to resurrect all these frozen corpses of people with no living family or friends to support them? Is the future such a utopia that not only have we solved overpopulation, but we're desperately looking to bring back long frozen bodies with severe medical problems?
- The part that really strikes me as idealistic and naive about the article though, is the idea that death is "not part of the plan". And I thought we were being unrealistic about the future when they could rebuild your brain. So now everyone lives forever? That doesn't seem very sustainable. Not to mention the fact that it is the very finiteness of life that makes it valuable in the first place.
Conclusion: The present is yours to do with what you like, and the future may or may not ever get here. Invest in today.
"Teenagers don't use twitter" is not even close to being true. It's more like, "One teenager and his friends don't use twitter", a classic case of biased sampling. To then jump to the conclusions - NO teenagers use twitter, ALL teenagers prefer text messaging - is not only idiotic, but demonstrably false.