Is there a hedonistic utilitarian case for Cryonics? (Discuss)

Cry­on­ics is a pop­u­lar topic among the ra­tio­nal­ist com­mu­nity but not the util­i­tar­ian com­mu­nity. My im­pres­sion is that most peo­ple who pro­mote Cry­on­ics are gen­er­ally not util­i­tar­i­ans and most util­i­tar­i­ans do not pro­mote Cry­on­ics.

This seems to be one area where the ra­tio­nal­ist and EA com­mu­ni­ties di­verge sig­nifi­cantly. My take is that typ­i­cally those ex­cited in Cry­on­ics are typ­i­cally in it for some­what self­ish (not in a bad way, just differ­ent from util­i­tar­ian) rea­sons, and that there haven’t been many at­tempts to jus­tify it as util­i­tar­ian be­cause that wasn’t the origi­nal in­ten­tion.

I can imag­ine some in­ter­est­ing ar­gu­ments for Cry­on­ics as an effec­tive in­ter­ven­tion, but I haven’t heard many oth­ers give these ar­gu­ments, and I’m re­luc­tant to steel man a cause for a rea­son its be­liev­ers don’t care about.

I wanted to open this up for the dis­cus­sion. I would hope we can roughly come to a con­sen­sus on which of the fol­low­ing is true:

1) There is a strong case for cry­on­ics be­ing an effec­tive mon­e­tary in­ter­ven­tion, and the math has been done to sup­port this.

2) Cry­on­ics can be an effec­tive ca­reer in­ter­ven­tion for some­one with a large amount of ca­reer cap­i­tal in the field, but not for oth­ers.

3) There is very lit­tle case for cry­on­ics as an effec­tive util­i­tar­ian in­ter­ven­tion, though it could make sense for other philo­soph­i­cal sys­tems or peo­ple with moral un­cer­tainty.

Other ques­tions:

1) If there is no He­donis­tic Utili­tar­ian case for Cry­on­ics, are there any strong Effec­tive Altru­ist cases for it?

2) How much of the above ap­plies to life ex­ten­sion re­search?