Comment by 0xDEAFBEAD

>You're talking about cryonics as if it were an established, scientifically proven and effective technology

I don't believe that. I do believe it is a hair less futile than delaying the inevitable and then burying yourself 6 feet underground.

>it doesn't work and is widely considered to be pseudoscience.

The cryonicist claim is something like: "If we save your brain in a way that preserves its information content, it may be possible for future technology to reconstruct that information content, and effectively revive you." No cryonicist is claiming that cryonics "works" with existing technology.

Consider the state of medicine in the year 1925 vs the state of medicine in the year 2025. Now extrapolate that advancement trend forwards until 2525. Is extrapolating trends forward a form of pseudoscience? If so, what do you say about global warming?

>And mentioning the cost of end-of-life care is risible when your alternative is paying paying indefinite rent to a company for freezer space to keep a corpse frozen.

Keeping a closed canister filled with liquid nitrogen is not especially costly.

Alcor charges $80K out of pocket for neuropreservation: https://www.alcor.org/membership/pricing-and-dues/

The Lancet says a typical American accumulates $155K in healthcare costs during the last 3 years of their life: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-19...

Long-term care costs are rising fast: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/business/retirement-long-...

(BTW, I appreciate that you made a falsifiable claim here, since that helps readers evaluate the credibility of your other claims. A sort of within-comment Gell-Mann effect.)