From: Scott Badger (wbadger@psyberlink.net)
Date: Mon Apr 19 1999 - 12:11:57 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> This being said, I am 31 and I have not signed up for cryonic suspension.
My rationalization for this act of pure laziness and/or stinginess is that
according to the stats, if I die in the next two decades it is most likely
to be something which leaves my brain in a useless state, and anything else
that happens is likely to give me plenty of a heads up that I will have time
to sign up for suspension before it kills me. Cryonics is a last ditch
option, which IMHO is most likely to be used by the oldsters on the list
than the youngsters. Caveat: I will probably sign up sometime in the next
ten years anyways if I wind up having a wife and kids that will make it much
more worthwhile to come back to.
>
> Now, if anyone can disabuse me of my current rationalizations...I would
appreciate it...
>
> Mike Lorrey
>
I would only suggest that you maintain a life insurance policy that would be
sufficient to pay for cryopreservation, keeping in mind that prices may
increase as different and more effective protocols are developed (one reason
to sign up now). But if something happens that prevents you from increasing
your coverage (e.g. heart attack) then you may be stuck. It's true that the
average cryonicist is older than most, but the young are poor planners in
general when it comes to life-long goals (e.g. insurance, retirement, etc).
It's just difficult for them to appreciate the need to plan on the next 60
years when they only have twenty under their belt. Since you mention a
possible future spouse/partner and your possible desire to return to them,
that brings up some potentially thorny issues, doesn't it?
How long do you all think marriages will last in a world where everyone is
ageless. I know I'm not going to let the preacher include, "Till death do
us part." in the vows. I suspect that the average marriage in the future
would last for a shorter period of time than it does today. To be blunt and
insensitive, I think that many people stay in a relatively loveless
relationship as they get older because they feel there are no other options.
Well, there'll be plenty of options if you're not aging. Plus, time changes
everyone, so the more time...the more change...the further apart you are
likely to grow. I don't see anything wrong with this. When it comes to
*shoulds*, I only believe that couples *should* try to maintain respectful,
commited, and hopefully loving relationships until their children are grown.
Even though lots of very psychologically healthy kids have grown up in a
single-parent houselhold, my experience suggests that two parents provide
greater levels of support and stability (getting off topic, now).
Another thorny cryonics issue is the benficiary issue. Spouses can easily
become upset with the idea that you've established a cryonics firm as the
beneficiary of your life insurance policy instead of the family. Ideally,
you could maintain two policies, but what if you only had the resources to
maintain one policy? Who would the beneficiary be? OK, now consider this
analogy: You've been told by your doctors that your only chance to live
requires an experimental medical procedure costing over $100,000 and with a
10% chance of success. Would your spouse insist that you *not* have the
operation so that the family could have the money? Would you agree or would
you fight for your life?
Scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:34 MST