# Charitable Cryonics

Tl;dr: Cryonics companies have a pre-written [bottom line](/lw/js/the_bottom_line/). If people believe cryonics has a reasonable chance of success, they are significantly [morally obligated](/lw/n3/circular_altruism/) to form a charity that would give cryonics away, as such a charity would be far more effective in convincing, and by extension saving people, since it would have no incentive to pre-write a bottom line. Over time, such a charity would increase general demand for cryonics, bringing it into the mainstream and making traditional cryonics companies more successful.

* * *

Let us assume for the purposes of this post, as I'm sure many of you believe, cryonics stands a reasonable chance (Let's pick p = 0.05) of being successful. It seems [pretty clear](/lw/n3/circular_altruism/) that you have a pretty strong moral obligation to attempt to get people signed up for cryonics. There is [a](/lw/2kh/against_cryonics_for_costeffective_charity/) [lot](/lw/6xk/years_saved_cryonics_vs_villagereach/) of [talk](/lw/6ez/organ_donation_vs_cryonics/) about things like Cryonics versus charity. Robin Hanson even has a post "[Cryonics as Charity](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/07/cryonics-as-charity.html)", although he means an entirely different thing than I do. But in searching, I was surprised not to find a post that asked this question: why isn't there a charity that provides cryonics to, for example, people that can't afford it? Or one offering it to the [greatest minds of our time](/lw/2k1/christopher_hitchens_and_cryonics/), in the hopes that they'll be around for all of our futures?

There's been a lot of [speculation](/lw/6vq/on_the_unpopularity_of_cryonics_life_sucks_but_at/) as to why cryonics isn't more popular. The answer, at least for me, is obvious. There's a tremendous dearth of reliable information on the subject. The fundamental problem with medicine is the information gap between consumer and provider - consumers don't have the scientific knowledge to make an informed purchase. But in conventional medicine, you can easily get a second opinion, whereas in cryonics, few people, from the media to medical professionals, take it seriously enough to offer a well thought out second opinion, even if that opinion is against it. And what information I have seen linked to on the subject is generally published by CI or Alcor. Ironically, when I [asked](/lw/2ku/welcome_to_less_wrong_20102011/4k3c) for "unbiased" information on the matter, I got exactly what I wasn't looking for - information from a company that wants me to pay them, at minimum, [$200,000](http://www.alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html). The result? An informational balance where one side presents no argument, and the other side presents an argument with a pre-written [bottom line](/lw/js/the_bottom_line/).

This is where the idea of a charity comes in. A charity would have no financial incentive to pre-write the bottom line, and is generally seen as a more reputable source of information, as it should be. Furthermore, it would help destigmatize cryonics, as part of the stigma (as I see it, I can't really tell you what gives me this impression) is that you've been "hoodwinked" by the companies. Obviously, it's not tenable for everyone to freeload their way to cryonics. But a charity would serve to bring cryonics into the mainstream and increase demand, providing a (more) neutral source of information. Which would, in time, make organizations like CI and Alcor far more popular.