Practiceby Lab 10 Get started ›
Crossfire

Is cryopreservation worth paying for?

What the experts say

Yvette d'EntremontBS chemistry, MSc forensic science (self-stated, not independently verified) · science writer, former analytical chemist

Not for her, and not on the evidence available. Revival would require curing the end stage of the illness that killed you, in a body preserved with decades-old technology, and she would rather spend the money now. She does not rule it out.

What it rests onHer column of 1 Mar 2021. She separates cryogenics and cryopreservation, which she calls fascinating and useful and lists working uses for including sperm, eggs and embryos, from cryonics, the revival claim, which is the only part she attacks. She describes the vitrified rabbit brain result accurately as preservation, noting in her own words that it guarantees nothing about reanimation or function, and that many organs have never been successfully thawed. Her conclusion is a personal spending decision, and the sentence right before it is 'I'm not ruling it out'. Her title is the harshest thing in her catalogue and her argument is milder than it.

Source: web.archive.org ↗
Max MorePhD philosophy · cryonics advocate, former Alcor president and CEO

Worth it for him, as a personal decision made under acknowledged uncertainty, and he refuses to attach a probability to it.

What it rests onHis Biostasis post 'What is the probability of cryonics working?', 19 Jul 2023. His summary opens 'In the end, it is not possible to objectively calculate the odds of cryonics working.' He separates the chance that cryonics works as a technical matter from the chance it works for a particular person, and reports hearing advocates give 1, 5, 30 and occasionally 90 percent. Just before the summary he writes that making arrangements may not rest on estimates of individual success at all, that he made his own in 1986 at 22 when he was unlikely to need them, partly to support the cause, and that 'the decision to take the journey is a highly personal one', calling his own choice venturesome rather than calculated. He has a declared interest: he holds equity in, advises or founded a company in this field.

Source: biostasis.substack.com ↗

Overview

Neither is talking about people in general; both are talking about themselves. Hers is a spending decision, his is a personal journey, and neither offers it as advice, so read this as two people explaining their own choice rather than as an answer to whether you should sign up. One asymmetry worth holding: he has a declared commercial relationship with the field and she has none, and he is the one refusing to give a number.

Where they agree

Unusually large. Both say the odds cannot be calculated. Both decline to call it impossible: she writes 'I'm not ruling it out', he writes that any probability here is at best an estimate. Both refuse the confident-percentage style, he by naming the range advocates give and declining to join them, she by refusing the promise.

Both treat it as a personal decision about money and meaning rather than a medical question. He also rejects the Pascal's-Wager argument for cryonics, a sceptical move about his own side that she does not know he made.

What would settle it

For her: a demonstrated revival of a cryopreserved mammalian brain with its function intact, the specific gap she names. For him: nothing narrow, since he already refuses to state odds. What would move him is an organisation failing, or the preservation itself failing, which is the risk his own writing is built around.

Practice does not pick a winner here

You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.

Get started

Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.