Cryonics, as currently extant, is snake-oil.

Great Debates
1

Or so I will argue here: Cryonic preservation, as currently offered, has not the slightest chance of preserving the treated individual in a manner fit for revival by even the most amazing advances in medical technology. And furthermore, I strongly suspect the people offering it know full well that it will not work; that is to say, that they are knowingly, wilfully fleecing their customers.

OK, my main basis for asserting this is the documentary I watched last night; it followed a terminally ill woman who had signed up for the process; through the last few weeks of her life, and then through the entire cryonics process until she was a corpsicle. Bearing in mind that this was (at least in terms of the process) pretty much a ‘best-case’ scenario; she knew she was going to die, so the team from the cryonics company (in this case, Alcor) were standing by, to spring into action as soon as the death certificate was issued and the corpse released.

So why isn’t it going to work? Right, well, up until yesterday, I had foolishly imagined that a best-case scenario would involve a delay of, I dunno, three or four hours between death and being frozen (and I should say that I would even consider this an unacceptably long interval, if eventual revival is the goal).
But it isn’t like that at all; there was no actual time given, but it was definitely upwards of 24 hours; perhaps even 48 or more, between pronouncement of death and final preservation in the Dewar.
For the first 18 or so hours after death, the body was packed in ice and trucked across country to the lab; there, it underwent massively invasive surgery(if that’s the right term), and over the next hours (lots more of them) the body fluids were replaced by (toxic) cryopreservant fluid. Holes were drilled in the cranium to insert temperature probes and the body was finally cooled to the vitrification point of the cryopreservant; as I say, perhaps 48 or more hours after pronouncement of clinical death.

This amounts to nothing more than a rather elaborate process of embalming; there can be utterly no hope of reviving a human body after it has undergone this treatment; I’m aware of the argument that it’s a better chance than none at all, but I don’t agree; or at least I would agree, if the same pronouncement was made about, say, the mummy of Tutankhamun. It’s just not going to work. Sorry.

Now, setting aside my argument of absolutes for one moment, the people selling this service must be aware (or if not aware, then deluded to the point of true insanity) that they are emblaming a corpse that has (lets be generous) very, very incredibly slim chances of being revived, and yet, they’re selling it as if it’s just an afternoon nap, from which you’ll wake up feeling rather perky. Now, I know, it;s the job of salespeople to ‘talk up’ their product, but come on! - this goes way past simple enthusiastic exaggeration of the benefits; this is plain deceit.

So there. Cryonics, as currently extant, is pure snake-oil. What say you?

2

That’s how I heard it as well. As far as anyone can tell today, the bodies are ruined. The companies just insist that there is always hope that in a distant future some quasi-magical technology will change that. If you ask me, that’s a bit weak.

3

What (if any) animal species have been succesfully cryopreserved and then reanimated? How long have they survived after the procedure?

4

Dunno, but in the documentary I mentioned, they interviewed a guy who works in cutting-edge research into cryopreservation of human donor organs; apparently, they have just managed to vitrify, revive and restore a rabbit kidney to function, but I got the impression that even their process for this was extremely tricky and more often failed than succeeded. I don’t think any entire mammal with a functioning circulatory or nervous system (i.e. not in embryo) has ever been successfully frozen and revived.
Some fish and amphibians can be frozen and revived, but that’s because they have evolved adaptations to being frozen during the winter in their natural habitat.

5

Well, Futurama’s been dead for about three years, but is making a comback…

6

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought most cryogenics services got around the “snake-oil” accusations by splitting the business into two independent practices: the cryopreservation proponents, who are the boosters for the whole concept; and the refrigeration services, who work as contractors who simply provide the processing and storage of corpses, with no claims whatsover for reanimation.

7

I’m not sure; certainly part of the fee is split off to a trust fund designed to pay for maintenance and cost of eventual reanimation.

I’m wondering though; what legal obligations do these cryonics companies have and to whom? - what would prevent them, say, fifty years from now, quietly disposing of the corpsicles that have no more surviving immediate relatives, and pocketing the cash? Certainly they’d be breaching some kind of contract, but that contract was made between the company and the person who is now legally dead and frozen (and therefore not ideally positioned to launch a lawsuit).
OK, it would be bad PR and damaging to future business if it got out, but that threat alone has not dissuaded some crematorium managers from making hay while the sun shines.

8

I say the same.

9

I’m sure the thought has never crossed their angelic little minds… :dubious:

:stuck_out_tongue:

Pretty much. The way I understand it is the process so destroys the cell structure that its pretty much impossible that those folks every could be brought back…reguardless of the technology. Unless, I suppose, there really IS a second coming and God brings em back…

One day I have no doubt we’ll solve the problems and Cryo-suspension will be a reality. It just won’t do these folks any good at all. Though perhaps future generations will thank us for perfectly preserved corpse from our time period…for the purposes of historical study (and assuming any of them last that 50+ years without any of these companies getting bright ideas).

-XT

10

Cryonic preservation is just as reasonable as religion.

11

Let’s just say that the selling of cryonics services is something we in the evil community heartily endorse.

12

Less. There’s no evidence *against *most forms of the afterlife as described by religions. There’s just no scientifically acceptable evidence for it.

There is a variety of evidence to suggest why cryonically opreserved corpses could ever be reanimated, and none to suggest why it could work.

Advantage: God.

13

From what I understand most people just have their head frozen. Now I assume that it will take a while before medical science gets to the point that it can make a whole new body for a person to ‘attach’ the head to. And if we get to the point where that is possible, it might be just conceivable that there will also be a way to take the brain out of the frozen head and unthaw it, or to scan the brain and transfer the memories from it to the new, uh, ‘host’.
But, yeah, if you plan to take a frozen head and graft it onto the body of Rosie Grier, it just ain’t going to happen anytime soon. In 200 years, though?

14

The religious parallels here are uncanny. If preachers aren’t aware of what they are doing, why should the cryonics folks.

I was going to say that.:wink:

Well actually, if we consider that science tells us that our perceptions, memories, and consciousness is made up of physical/chemical/electrical impulses in the brain, then when that brain decomposes science can have a lot to say about what will happen our perceptions, memories and consciousness.

At best I’d say it’s a draw. If I were a betting man, I would think it a little more likely to restore lifes qualities to semi-preserved cells than to create them out of nothing at all.

15

Another problem with cryonics; even if nanotechnology advances to the point where we can repair the damage done to brain cells by freezing how could we enure that the brain was reconstructed exactly as it was before death? Otherwise the person being revived would be different that the one frozen.

16

Well, I’ve heard it said that cryonic preservation is the second worst thing that could ever happen to you. If it’s a choice between dying and rotting in some box in the ground and an infintesimally small chance that there will be some actual ‘magic’ technology via nanotech ect. then I’ll side with the infintesimally small chance every time. This is assuming of course that the money required for preservation wouldn’t be better served by taking care of your loved ones… in other words a use for a relatively small excess of your estate. Just my opinion.

17

Religion doesn’t necessarily involve creating cells out of nothing at all. I don’t often get to write this, so I’ll repeat Menocchio’s claim: advantage God.

When I was younger, I thought the whole problem with cryonics was that we didn’t yet have the technology to bring the corpsicles back, but that’s not the case. We don’t have the technology to freeze them without destroying them. It’s pure snake-oil.

18

While I agree that it is profoundly unlikely that one would be able to ‘revive’ or re-create the same person from something that has been frozen

  • it is extremely /unlikely/ that one could not create a clone - in even five years.

Already sperm and ova are frozen - and defrosted for use.

Cryogenics is a bit of a con, but the fallback position that one could be cloned, is very viable.

Heart transplant patients have reported taking on characteristics of donors, like liking ice cream or classical music, but I find it hard to believe that our memories and ‘personality’ are replicated in every cell.

Cryogenics is IMO no better than being a DNA donor for cloning.

… which might be enough for some people

19

But the clone won’t be you. It will be someone else who just happens to have the same DNA as you. Remember, this system is being sold as a way to cheat death. In that, it is definitely a scam.

I’ll have to admit that the religious parallels are somewhat valid. Basically, cryogenics is like an afterlife for atheists. Except that instead of God saving them, they’re hoping that some future technology will.

Assuming, of course, that the cryogenics company doesn’t go out of business first. As others have mentioned, their clients aren’t in a good position to enforce their contracts.

As for me, I’m betting on the Almighty Creator of the Universe to save my sorry ass :wink:

20

48 hours? I’m no expert, but it sounds likely that 48 hours of decay – even in a body packed in ice – won’t do brain tissue any good. Even if it could then be perfectly preserved and maintained, it’s hard to imagine that the electrochemical relationships among the trillions of neurons could all be restored to the way they were. Maybe if you could instantly freeze the brain while it was still alive (and keep from rupturing the cells).

But when it comes to magically reconstructing decayed brain tissue – I’d almost have as much faith that people in the future would be able to use wormholes to get enough data from the past to reconstruct anybody they want. (In which case, that probably won’t include you and me – unless we wake up on the Riverworld!)

I’d be happy if we could just revive frozen pizza to taste like fresh.