From: Jerry Mitchell (jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: Mon May 07 2001 - 21:10:58 MDT
Plus I would think you would need to factor in how many years you would
purchase per 100 dollars spent. My guess is this alone makes cryonics FAR
FAR more effcient.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Brian Atkins
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 8:13 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: Risk vs. Payoff (was Re: Alcor on KRON)
>
>
> Yeah but the cost (at least for me here in the USA) is less
> than the cost
> of my car insurance every month. If you can't afford to
> insure yourself
> instead of your car, then you should re-evalute your priorities :-)
>
> Max M wrote:
> >
> > > From: E. Shaun Russell
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > | Not Signed Up |
> Signed Up |
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > If Cryonics Doesn't Work | You're Dead | You're
> Dead |
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > If Cryonics Does Work | You're Dead | You're
> Not Dead |
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Seems like a pretty easy choice to me...
> >
> > Havn't we discussed this before and found that the basic
> fallacy here is
> > pretending that it is without cost to sign up?
> >
> > If using your money for signing up for Cryonics gives you a
> lower overall
> > chance of surviving indefinately than using them for
> general healthcare or
> > other things to improve your longivity it's not such an easy choice.
> >
> > regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark
>
> --
> Brian Atkins
> Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
> http://www.singinst.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:32 MST