my kneejerk reaction to this line of reasoning was to reject it immediately; as one planning to be cryogenically preserved, I'm quite biased against this notion. upon reflection, there's truth to it. if one has not adequately provided for their family, it is indeed overly selfish

people have a duty to their family, especially to one they've started, ie spouse and offspring. the parents, men especially, are expected to provide materially, and set up the next generation for success. diverting resources for individual gain can interfere with this duty

if one was to deprive their children of their inheritance for the sake of cryonics, that would indeed be unethical IMO; it violates the spirit of the family arrangement, wherein one expands their notion of the self to encompass the family unit.

hence, diverting family resources for individual cryopreservation can only be said to be ethical when adequate arrangements have already been made for the surviving spouse and children; how to determine if the arrangements are adequate, however, is a highly subjective matter

in this light, I find the "hostile wife" phenomenon, when motivated by such concerns, much more reasonable; parasitic cryonics is as damaging to a family as any other disproportionately costly pursuit.

clearly the answer is to become rich enough that its but a drop in the bucket