Jump to content

Cryonics


ecoli
 Share

Recommended Posts

The more I think about it, I think it's probably a good way to go. It's cheaper than most people realize especially if you lock into a plan when you're young.

 

Assuming there's a good chance we'll develop sufficient nanotech/AI/singularity to reboot people, what do you all think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the concept of human popsicles is impractical and there are better solutions.

I won't mention them, because I don't want that being mainstream.

But in general, we aren't completely made like frogs nor arctic frogs.

The blood vessels would crack and shatter, etc.. etc..

I think neural decay would happen, perhaps a kind of "freezerburn."

Not a feasible long-term (1+ month) solution.

Edited by Genecks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you a biologist, too?

I thought you were.

 

I think the concept of human popsicles is impractical and there are better solutions.

I won't mention them, because I don't want that being mainstream.

But in general, we aren't completely made like frogs nor arctic frogs.

The blood vessels would crack and shatter, etc.. etc..

I think neural decay would happen, perhaps a kind of "freezerburn."

Not a feasible long-term (1+ month) solution.

 

There are some chemical solutions which counteract that. But I'm talking about reanimating neural tissue and not expecting significant loss of information. Surely a few blood vessels shouldn't pose much of a problem... that's assuming preserving the original body is even necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
There are some chemical solutions which counteract that. But I'm talking about reanimating neural tissue and not expecting significant loss of information. Surely a few blood vessels shouldn't pose much of a problem... that's assuming preserving the original body is even necessary.

 

How would any process protect against damage caused by all of that water freezing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you could possibly dehydrate the person first.

there has been cases of people being lost in the Arctic, froze, then reviving once they warmed up.

One theory of why this worked was because of the extreme lack of oxygen caused the cells to hibernate instead of dying, but the people lost probably got dehydrated first.

assuming that the rest of the cells stay pliable long enough, the water could probably freeze and expand without damaging anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, we cover this cryonics issue every so often.

Let's make it philosophical rather than biological.

 

*spins the wheel*

 

I state cryonics are ethical and good, because they allow people to hibernate and consume less physical resources. Nonetheless, it might not be beneficial for people, as they may miss out on life opportunities or be out-competed by members of society.

Edited by Genecks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, I think it's probably a good way to go. It's cheaper than most people realize especially if you lock into a plan when you're young.

 

Assuming there's a good chance we'll develop sufficient nanotech/AI/singularity to reboot people, what do you all think?

 

I think the company in charge of your remains will suck your money dry and then dump you. And by the time we have the tech to revive you, the world will be so overpopulated that no one will want you around anyways and most of your knowledge will be obsolete.

 

But in theory, a good idea.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Although it is not quite the same thing, my daughter had the stem cells from her umbilical cord frozen and stored in case she needs stem cells later in life.

 

This on the other hand is a very reasonable thing to do, and also much cheaper and more likely to be of use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it is not quite the same thing, my daughter had the stem cells from her umbilical cord frozen and stored in case she needs stem cells later in life.

 

I gotta ask this, though I really hate to do so. . .

 

How in the world does anyone have cells from their own umbilical cord frozen? Did she make this decision when she was a newborn?

 

(Hey you. . .Nurse! Save that, will 'ya? I might need it later.)

 

Don't know about you folks, but by the time I could:

 

A--afford it

B--understand what it was all about

 

My own umbilical was 20-30 years in the trash.

 

Perhaps my parents could have made this decision, but I don't see how anyone else could.

 

Enquiring minds. . .

 

 

Bill Wolfe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you could possibly dehydrate the person first.

there has been cases of people being lost in the Arctic, froze, then reviving once they warmed up.

 

Can you support this contention? No one has ever been revived after being frozen.

 

 

One theory of why this worked was because of the extreme lack of oxygen caused the cells to hibernate instead of dying, but the people lost probably got dehydrated first.

assuming that the rest of the cells stay pliable long enough, the water could probably freeze and expand without damaging anything.

 

Drying out the human body would be just was impossible to revive from as freezing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the world does anyone have cells from their own umbilical cord frozen? Did she make this decision when she was a newborn?

 

She wasn't asked, but they are still her stem cells, so she had them frozen. In the similar way that she had her hair cut the other day, even though she didn't make the appointment or pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, I think it's probably a good way to go. It's cheaper than most people realize especially if you lock into a plan when you're young.

 

Assuming there's a good chance we'll develop sufficient nanotech/AI/singularity to reboot people, what do you all think?

 

It seems like a good idea conceptually, however given the recent atrocities committed with Alcor including things like playing games with frozen heads, in practice I'm not sure it's really worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like a good idea conceptually, however given the recent atrocities committed with Alcor including things like playing games with frozen heads, in practice I'm not sure it's really worth it.

 

The biggest problem seems to be in trusting the stability of institutions (in this way and others). However, I don't think its a strong argument against the concept.

 

It's taking a risk, but the worse that happens is that I stay dead. The utility I gain from potentially infinite life seems to outweigh the cost of cryonics insurance and the risk of something going wrong.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I think the company in charge of your remains will suck your money dry and then dump you.

I potential institutional problem. However the insurance costs are not as high as you'd think and, as I understand, you only pay into it when you're still alive.

 

And by the time we have the tech to revive you, the world will be so overpopulated that no one will want you around anyways and most of your knowledge will be obsolete.

 

The kind of tech required to revive a dead person (singularity, FAI) will make human population an irrelevant issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's taking a risk, but the worse that happens is that I stay dead.

 

That depends on whether you consider staying dead no better than staying dead, and having the cryonics people be your only heirs. You won't care then, obviously, but you might care now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on whether you consider staying dead no better than staying dead, and having the cryonics people be your only heirs. You won't care then, obviously, but you might care now.

 

Why would cryonics people be my only heirs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem seems to be in trusting the stability of institutions (in this way and others). However, I don't think its a strong argument against the concept.

 

It's certainly an argument against cryonics in practice. Who can you trust to keep your remains preserved in perpetuity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly an argument against cryonics in practice. Who can you trust to keep your remains preserved in perpetuity?

the strength of the contract and the ability of government (and lawyers) to enforce that contract after my death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.