Cryonics

[ecoli]

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?

[Genecks]

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 March 16, 2010 by Genecks

[ecoli]

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.

[Severian]

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.

[ecoli]

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.

What a good idea.

[foodchain]

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?

[Severian]

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

 

The problem with water is that it expands when it freezes, causing damage. Maybe the chemicals dampen that expansion?

[Icefire]

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.

[Genecks]

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 March 27, 2010 by Genecks

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

[StrontiDog]

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

[Radical Edward]

well parents will do it for them. I intend to with my kids.

[Moontanman]

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.

[Severian]

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.

[bascule]

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.

[ecoli]

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.

[Sisyphus]

 

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.

[ecoli]

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?

[bascule]

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?

[ecoli]

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.