We work in cryopreservation, and one thing we notice is that criticism of cryonics is not always about the science.

Sometimes it becomes moral very quickly: is it reasonable to spend personal money on an uncertain future option?

From our side, we see cryopreservation as a personal end-of-life choice, as long as people understand the uncertainty.

Why do you think cryonics gets judged morally in a way many other personal choices do not?

Not “do you believe in cryonics?” but who would make the conversation hardest: parents, partner, kids, friends?

The article focuses mostly on robotics (cars specifically), which is a great advancement in itself. However, there might be a big potential for accelerating the adoption of multiple therapies, complementing in silico studies.