Some people (surely only morons like myself) may take the phrase "shut up and multiply", a slogan for utilitarianism, as though it indicates people who disagree with them should, well, shut up. Obviously it doesn't mean that... it means... ya know, something else, I guess. Wait, you actually believe in the idea of duty, for instance, even if it doesn't 'maximize utility'? Shut up!

This is one of maybe four reasons why I dislike modern utilitarianism, but arrogance isn't the worst flaw, I suppose. Utilitarianism seems particularly prone to what I can only describe as multiplication traps, where they go around paying for things like head-freezing services.

Now, if you want to cryofreeze your head, go ahead, please do. But tell me, if the endowment pays for upkeep, who pays for this hyper-futuristic medical care you'll be needed to survive head-freezeyness (and presumably, a death caused by something else)? Do they anticipate they will be thawed and cured in some Demolition Man style skills-from-the-past grab? How many people from the distant past would be useful at all to us, now? I suspect the answer is low, and zero if we don't include "fulfilling the voyeuristic desire to speak to a relic" wherein they essentially become a plaything for the amusement of historians and YouTubers (shudder). That life isn't ideal – if you want to participate in the wider society, it would cost you your old-timey-ness, the one thing they want from you, so why would they let you? They'd rather thaw and cure the ones who will live in their strange, primitive way.

And who's the medical proxy that decides when the future's defreeze technology is good enough to thaw out you? Did you go with the bronze plan, the 1%-chance-is-OK plan, because a lot of those guys are going to be warm meat before they're done developing the procedure. What's the incentive to treat head-frozenness if these people don't have a competent medical proxy spending money on it – but what choices could that kind of proxy ever make? Which is the medical proxy that will serve you up as a test subject, and why would you sign up with them? If there aren't specific people deciding to be test subjects how could anyone develop the science?

But they say the odds of someone figuring it out are high enough that, you see, you just shut up and multiply and it works out. No duty for these organizations to present a clear plan for the future. No duty to demonstrate the technology works – they can't, of course! But if it could work...

Uh huh. Sure.

n.b. My lnodds for "all information comprising my identity, as represented in my brain, would be preserved indefinitely at 150 Kelvin after being injected with the otherwise-lethal 'cryoprotectants'" is < -10. It would be higher if they just dumped you on a mountain, which has at least temporarily worked for some insanely small fraction of people who die on mountains.

And the odds go even lower when you consider: the material risk of these organizations going bankrupt (has happened before, the bodies thawed); the risk of material incompetence of the organization in the future (almost all businesses implode on the timescales required for this to work); the agency and experimental concerns above; the weird incentive issues involved in an industry selling something it claims you should buy despite it not being known to work, an extremely tempting arena for charlatans; the additional temptation to scammers of being a business where they get a huge lump-sum payment and you're literally too dead to complain if they steal it; the incentive issues that lack of testing bring, i.e. there's no incentive for them to improve the freezing process, only partly because there's no way to figure out what's better or worse; and the fact that US law might prohibit any contract from extending for more than 100 years; among, presumably, many others I am simply to bored to think of.

So if you want to multiply, please do. It shouldn't work out well. For some reason utilitarians don't seem to come to that conclusion, but whatever.

Out of principle we should refuse any deal at high risk of fraud like this, because otherwise fraudsters will flood the market, comprise all options we could find, to take our money. But, of course, that idea doesn't involve multiplication.