There’s nothing wrong with being afraid of going to a new school, or ditching it and not ever going.

Oh, because they might have really advanced MRI’s?

I’ve seen some expressions of social anxiety projected into the future as reasons not to get cryonically suspended, but yours reads like an Onion parody. In general these objections make me think of a kid who fears going to a new school: What if the kids at the new school don’t like me? What if they won’t let me play with them? What if they laugh at me?

You’ve just added: What if they want to vivisect me?

I don’t see how “going to heaven” solves anything. What if you get to heaven, then you rebel against god? Perhaps god intends for you to rebel; you just drew the short stray in god’s greater plan.

And does going to the orthodox version of hell, by contrast, really sound that bad? At least it would show that your earthly life had meaning.

Universalism and Annihilationism have both tried to make hell go away, but neither has become a mainstream christian doctrine. Annihilationism, which teaches that the damned simply vanish into oblivion, sounds WAY too much like the Epicurean theory of the fate of the dead which allegedly deprives our earthly lives of “meaning.” Apparently many if not most christians want to keep hell because, as I’ve pointed out above, it serves an important function in their meaning-of-life construct.

If you have questions about AGI vivisecting people I’d recommend trying to put them into as concrete of an argument as possible and submitting it to lesswrong.com to see if they say something that will change your mind. My take on it is that there’s not much reason for AGI to literally vivisect anyone (since they don’t stand to gain any useful information by doing so), but they might put people in painful situations for other reasons (to determine their reaction under stress, or — worst case scenario — because they value and wish to maximize human pain). A much bigger (in terms of statistical likelihood) risk from AGI is that it will value something other than humans (such as paperclips) and go on to produce it and kill us in the process.

That is all equally subject to the assumption that AGI is possible in principle, which I’m not 100% sure about. But from a utilitarian point of view, it seems like if AGI is a credible threat that implies we should be investing resources in Friendliness. That cryonicists are more threatened than non-cryonicists implies that cryonicists have more motive to be address the issue. So perhaps one of the smartest / most ethical things you can do (under the assumption that the AGI threat is real) is to convince people to sign up for cryonics.

I believe a better phrasing of unperson’s comment is: “There are many people that you won’t be able to [bring into the fold of cryonics advocacy] by invoking the promise of avoidance of death/loss, and especially not with blunt invocation of the promise of “immortality,” which is taboo among many people . This heart-warming “Pearl” essay did a good job avoiding the latter. However, we could inspire and bring more people into the fold of cryonics if [compassion/ avoidance of suffering in poor health] were equally emphasized as the possibility of avoiding death/loss. Also, it would help to mention some spiritual/ religious issues, and demonstrate how they are not incompatible with cryonics.” (see my last two paragraphs for that).

“The ‘screen’ of the cryonics-death-immortality taboo” was a poor choice of words, but don’t get lost on the validity of unperson’s point. If you’re true believers in cryonics, you should advocate it and try to create mass enthusiasm for cryonics. unperson isn’t suggesting conspiring or huckster “selling of” cryonics. Just consider it: creating mass appeal.

For example, there is more appeal to me in the avoidance of suffering than in the prolonging of life. The essay was very touching; I cried. I think it would “touch” just about anyone, but not necessarily inspire or “convert” to cryonics advocacy. I’m NOT interested in vitrification/cryopreservation for myself. You should attempt to create mass appeal, convert the masses, and convert people like me. You need to figure out how to create the appeal. The more quickly cryonics R&D reaches “critical mass,” the more quickly reanimation will become feasible.

Assisted suicide, euthanasia, and cryonics –to a utilitarian such as myself– are all “blessings” to humanity because they can prevent the deplorable quality of life and wasting away of mind and body that presently comes with old age.
Personally, I much prefer euthanasia and assisted suicide to cryonics. I have no faith in future SOCIETY to revive me in a better, future world. “The future” sometimes scares me more than it inspires and excites me. As a child I dreamed of living for thousands of years and exploring space.
But economic, technological, and social reality scare me more and more with each passing year.
Suicide + incineration is my present plan for avoiding suffering.

I apologize if this is too vivid for you, but: If I reach old age in poor health –longevity isn’t enough for me, quality of life is everything– I’m definitely going to committ suicide and I’m not going to seek vitrification/ cryopreservation. Maybe I’ll bring a barrel of gasoline out to a remote desert location, hop in, hold a cigarette lighter in one hand and put a bullet in my head with the other hand. If all goes to plan, my body will be incinerated.
I do NOT want to be around if AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) get out of control and decide to start vivisecting and experimenting on humans. Humans dissect everything in order to understand it. Why wouldn’t AGI do the same?

However, I fully intend to live indefinitely and perhaps for thousands of years.
I intend to help develop cures/preventions for diseases, including aging.
But I sleep with a gun under my pillow and I’m ready to end my life in an instant if I anticipate intense or prolonged suffering.
If a small majority of Earth’s population were to become cryonics enthusiasts, conduct more R&D, and develop better prospects for reanimation in a future society with good quality of life, then I might consider cryonics myself. But for now, suicide + incineration seems a better option to avoid suffering.

To promote adoption of cryonics in “Western Civilization,” you should consider the fact that more than 50% of the USA are Christian, and many Europeans.
A large majority of the world’s population are religious or “spiritual” and lean towards belief in an afterlife.
Vitrification in the present and reanimation in the future would allow us to avoid death/loss, and if or when “God” decides to bring a complete end to mortal existence, obviously no one will avoid that fate, and we’d likely be even better off in the afterlife than in reanimation. If there is a God, I doubt He or It would be so petty and cruel as to condemn most of humanity to “hell”.
However, reanimation may never become technically possible or “the world” could end before it does. It’s very important to stress the COMPASSION that cryonics provides.

Unfortunately for progress in cryonics, many Christians believe their souls go to heaven upon death, although “limbo” is more in accordance with scripture and doctrine.
Emphasize that cryonics is a “suspended animation” –not unlike “limbo.”
Emphasize that by utilizing cryonics we can avoid suffering from disease (young or old) and avoid dementia and neglect in old age,
and might be able to enjoy more life in the future.
Heaven likely is not/ “might not” be available to us directly upon death. Limbo is what’s waiting after death.
According to scripture and doctrine, there is a “general resurrection” of all the dead; then all the living and un-dead are judged; some go to heaven; some go to “hell.”
Cryonics won’t change any of that.