I don't know of anyone who has gotten rich off of cryonics. It is not an effective con.
So, add ineptitude to idiocy among the many failings of Robot Cultism, then. I daresay, though, that plenty of basement dwelling grifters are managing to feed themselves while peddling the moonshine arsenal of techno-immortalist wish-fulfillment fantasizing. And once we contextualize cryonics as a marginal branch-tip of the larger fraudulent world of boner pill ads and crappy anti-ageing face creams and self-esteem pep rallies, one's sense of the dollars in motion alters considerably.
I daresay the deepest con of all is the death-denialism techno-immortalists are selling themselves -- a con better measured in psychic self mutilation than in cash, strictly speaking. But, hey, it's a free country -- you can hold whatever freaky faiths you want to and it's fine by me. Just don't expect me to help you pretend it is actual science or serious policy or academic philosophy you are doing.
cryonics... does seem to put one more sharply at odds with known evils like superstition, aging, ignorance, societal stability, and the like.
Cryonics enthusiasts characteristically exhibit both flabbergasting ignorance (of the facts that intelligence is embodied and social, that lives are lived in vulnerable bodies embedded in history, that narrative selfhood is finite, that to fear death is to die in life before you die, and so on) as well as superstition (an essentially magickal conception of technique, for one thing) so I fail to see in what sense they are "at odds" with these.
And every cryonics enthusiast is as mortal as everybody else and ages like everybody else if they are lucky enough to live long enough to age, so as a matter of fact I fail to see in what sense they are factually "at odds" with aging either.
when we're talking about respect for dead people, it matters a good deal whether you think they are dead as to whether what you say is respectful.
Dead people are just as dead whether Robot Cultists say they are or not. You can weave your religious narrative according to your own taste, but you don't get your own facts. I don't care if Christians feel disrespected when I affirm Darwin and I don't care if techno-immortalists feel disrespected when I affirm a frozen dead guy is dead.
Michael Anissimov's "congratulations" to corpses for being disposed of in a way he approves of according to the dictates of his Robot Cult is still as palpably silly as it was the first time I pointed it out as such, but more to the point it is utterly disconnected to actual science or serious healthcare discourse, however desperately Robot Cultists spin it otherwise. Now, declaring my own testifying to these uncomfortable facts as "disrespect for the dead" may be a consoling last ditch stab at distraction but we all know who the Robot Cultists in this picture are and what that means.
It is the extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary support -- and cranks and con-artists in Robot Cults don't get to preen sanctimoniously about how their opponents are failing to do "basic research" when representative consensus science in all the relevant fields in question don't give techno-immortalizing handwaving the time of day.
Do you think it is an accident that so many "scientists" among the Robot Cultists are just software coders or dilettante hobbyists without relevant credentials or generally cited publications? Choose a field, get a PhD and work and publish for real and you won't have time for all this faith-based pseudo-scientific bullshit. On what planet does anybody think Michael Anissimov or Eliezer Yudkowsky or the other would-be luminaries of the futurological tin-pot fiefdom is contributing to actual science? Only within the circled-wagons of the Robot Cult archipelago itself, and possibly among some corporate-media rubes sniffing at drama over substance.
Robot Cultists want to eat science and have it, too. So, you'll forgive me if I fail to care particularly whether or not I meet the conditions under which techno-immortalists adjudge my criticisms "welcome" or not. If you had any standards worth citing you wouldn't be flogging futurological fraud as science in the first place.