It's known that the "freezing" process is not too destructive. It's clear you didn't read the article, it'd clear up your misconceptions.
Can you point me to the relevant part, especially if there's anything on the neurological effects of it? It's a little long winded at roughly 15k words and I simply have no intention of reading it all.
The closest I found was this:
In other words, it’s reasonable to assume that the fanciest future neuroscientists will become so good at reading a damaged vitrified brain for clues as to its original structure that a typical combo of aging, disease, heart stoppage, and vitrification likely won’t be able to “stump” them. And to cryonicists, if future scientists can examine your vitrified brain and figure out what it’s supposed to look like, you’re not dead—by definition.
And I didn't find it terribly convincing. It sounds a lot more like rebuilding something that resembles the baseline human mental apparatus than resurrecting you.
You mean it's 700 per year so you can live a lot longer. It's easy to scoff at it in your twenties when you expect to live forever. Creeping sense of mortality comes later.
You'll find that there's nothing more valuable than "some more life" when you don't have much of it left.
Possibly, yes. True.
On your deathbed, who wouldn't take the chance for some more life? But this is not something you just decide to go at on your deathbed, but something that you pay by having decreased quality of life during your absolute lifetime. And it's a long shot.
Not stupid but far, far from certain.
