[AngryParsley]

The cost is low enough today that it could be much more common. Even the most expensive set-up (Alcor whole-body, whole life insurance) is about $130/month for a healthy person in their mid 20's. With term life and neuro (head-only), you could cut that in half. Still, only a couple thousand people are signed up.

Alcor has published a cost break-down http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonicsTables.txt and explained it at http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonics.html

A big chunk of cash is spent keeping a team on-site while waiting for the person to die. Assisted suicide for the terminally ill would help reduce costs significantly.

[nodata]

> for a healthy person in their mid 20's

Oh come on, quoting the cheapest price isn't fair or realistic. How about showing us something more representative, or at least quoting the most expensive rate as well?

[AngryParsley]

I'll address it, but I don't think cost is your true rejection[1]. If I was talking about a highly-experimental cancer treatment, I doubt you'd nitpick the price. Doubly-so if you had cancer. In fact, I bet you'd do your best to estimate its effectiveness.

I didn't quote the cheapest price. I quoted what I pay. I have no idea how much older people pay for life insurance. If you looked at their website, you'd see that Alcor dues are $800/year. Neuropreservation is $80k and whole-body is $200k (http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html). This may sound like a lot, but the standard way to pay is to buy life insurance. When you die, the policy pays Alcor. You can see the cost break-down in my GP comment.

Alcor is expensive. Cryonics Institute is the budget option. CI dues are $120/year and whole-body preservation costs $35k. CI members usually pay with life insurance as well. CI can charge less because they have less staff. Their research budget is practically zero. Most importantly, they won't camp at your deathbed. IIRC, Eliezer is signed up with CI and pays around $300/year. That's the cheapest price possible.

It's often said that getting cryopreserved is the second-worst thing that can happen to you. Cryonics gives you a small chance of living a much longer life. I'll be the first to admit that it's highly unlikely to work. But for myself and many others, the expected value calculation heavily favors signing up. After all, consider the alternative: You die slightly wealthier.

1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/

[dennisgorelik]

"A small change" of living after being cryopreserved after you are declared legally dead is less than your chance to win powerball jackpot with single ticket.

The alternative is that you do a little bit more with your life, because you don't spend $120/year and all the mental energy for planning your after-life.

[AngryParsley]

The probability of revival varies based on who you ask. SEM micrographs of cryopreserved mammal brain tissue show intact nanostructure. One can even see synaptic vesicles with neurotransmitters in them. Also, Alcor's cryopreservation protocol has been used to preserve and revive rabbit kidneys successfully (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781097/).

If cryonics works, this is the sort of evidence you'd expect to see today. Demanding a revival doesn't make sense, because cryonics relies on the vast gap between preservation tech and revival tech.