[extropy-chat] WSJ: A Cold Calculus Leads Cryonauts To PutAssetson Ice

kevinfreels.com kevin at kevinfreels.com
Tue Jan 31 23:00:43 UTC 2006


This reminds me of a small website I ran across a while back -
www.relifeaac.com
The idea I think was to pay out to this company when you die, then your
money is no longer yours and can;t be attacked by people after the state. A
contract is signed and I guess if they don't pay up when you come back, you
could sue them for breech of contract.

It led me to another idea. Has anyone considered something similar to the
X-prize for cryonics? Imagine a trust that was paid into out of life
insurance as people passed away. This trust would pay out say 10% to the
first group to bring back a squirrel after 6 months, 25% to the first to
bring back a dog after a year, and 65% to whomever brings back the first
human. This pot would continuously grow as more people were preserved.

On top of that, you could have a trust set aside specifically for the person
who brought you back. How's that for incentive?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith M. Elis" <zarathustra_winced at yahoo.com>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] WSJ: A Cold Calculus Leads Cryonauts To
PutAssetson Ice


> Robert Bradbury:
>
> > If its being invested it makes a big difference whether you are
> > investing it in a nanotech investment fund (which is *really*
> > investing in nanotechnology and not nanohype) vs. say U.S.
> > automobile manufacturers or in the not so distant future the
> > "old-mentality" phone companies.
> >
> > It also makes a difference whether one confines the investment
> > to U.S. $ or opts for an international currency mix.  That in
> > turn tends to relate to how hard (and where) one thinks various
> > aspects of the singularity may hit.
>
> The money will no doubt be well-diversified and properly managed based
> on the information available at the time. Even if his average net ROR
> was a fairly moderate 8% per year over 100 years, a million dollars
> would be worth upwards of 2.1 billion. Another 80 years at that rate
> and he's a trillionaire. (This assumes he puts it all in a
> tax-shelter).
>
> > The path you choose determines whether you come back a rich
> > person or much more likely (IMO) a relatively poor person (if
> > you haven't kept up with the singularity).
>
> It's the singularity that this cryonics customer is betting on (whether
> he knows it or not). This isn't simply an elaborate way to achieve 8%
> net for 100 years. He's betting that he'll come back, he'll be himself,
> he'll have his faculties, and he'll be able to adjust without going
> insane. A singularity is the big payoff for him. It means he gets to
> come back at all.
>
> But more to your point, how do *you* propose to become rich leading up
> to and during a singularity if not by investing in some kind of
> profit-making enterprise out there in the economy?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Designing a *good* investment strategy for what is coming and
> > taking into accout the various reanimation scenarios is *not*
> > easy and I would argue that most people who would be tasked
> > with doing it (today) are likely to significantly underperform
> > the rate of growth that the singularity may bring.  [How many
> > investment strategies detail precisely *when* you turn the
> > money over to a self-evolving, improving AI investment fund
> > manager?]
>
> You see, you bring up this term 'underperform' but it's meaningless
> without a benchmark. Which benchmark do you want to use? Since the dawn
> of the markets, it has always made sense to index the largest companies
> in the market to get an idea of how the economy overall is behaving.
> You don't want to use existing indices, so what other benchmark do you
> propose?
>
> Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list