Affordable freezing is here. Insurance is available. Newest techniques have frozen cells without traditional damage due to expansion and cracking.
Animals have been revived after freezing retaining memory. Many people die in hospitals with enough notice to contract cryonic preservation.
Threatening isn’t it. Being brought back to consciousness in unfamiliar era, maybe no friends or relatives. Can you start over, knowing no one? Want to?
Challenge or Threat?
And lets not even think about what happens to your resistance to disease. In the future, your potential revivors might destroy your frozen form rather than risk a massive infection. And this assumes you might not die easily from future diseases, anyway.
Frankly, I’m not sure its worth it. To quote: “Who wants to live forever?” I’d rather take my eternal reward [or punishment] sooner than later.
A small chance of coming back is better than the alternative: Unreverisble death leading to the total elimination of awareness. I’m in. I just hope the tech is refined by the time I get frozen. I should have 50 years or so left, statistically. Vitrification is looking like the way to go these days (because it does much less cellular damage). Unfortunately, at the moment, they can only Vitrify the head, which could add considerable time to how long it will take to be able to recover you. Decisions decisions. . .
DaLovin’ Dj
If I thought there was any reasonable probablity that 1) my consciousness would survive the freezing/thawing process intact 2) nothing would happen to my little freezer 3) that a future civilization would be capable of reviving me and 4) that a future civilization would want to revive me, then hell, I’d do it. What an amazing adventure.
However, I’d rather will my money to a worthy charity (as I don’t see Podlets in my future) than throw it away on a pie-in-the-sky dream.
Why in the world would the future want to revive old sick people from the past? Historical interest? That is about the only reason I can come up with.
Because human suffering and death are ugly and should be removed if possible. Most people now want to save as many lives as possible. I don’t see that changing.
DaLovin’ Dj
I don’t suppose you happen to have a cite for this “reliable” cryonics, do you?
Spare parts
Slave labor
Food.
Suffering and death are two fundamental facets of life itself. By way of example, I offer the following from an article in Scientific American regarding the feeding habits of the Komodo dragon:
You may note that this is not exactly kind and gentle. “Now wait,” you say, “I suggested the removal of human suffering and death.” We are not much different from either the komodo or the deer, in terms of basic biology. We require food and water, are built from the same proteins, etc.
The elimation of suffering and death, even if it were only human suffering and such a thing were possible, would require a complete re-tooling of the mechanics of life. We have our own predators, in the way of bacteria, virii, etc, which cause suffering and death. We would either have to alter life itself (in it’s entirety), or somehow completely re-design the human species. We’re certainly trying both approaches, but I think that such an existence ultimately would not be life as we know it.
Personally, I think the deep-freeze is a waste of time, effort, and money. Sign me up for a pine box, and to dust shall I return. Quite frankly, I think death is a good thing for humans. I don’t find it ugly at all.
Life as we know it is not ideal. I welcome change.
On the one hand, the eternal quiet and peace of the grave . . . On the other, a season or two of wild adventures on FOX with a one-eyed alien babe and a wise-ass robot . . . Hmmm . . .
Scylla, who said anything about reliable cryonics. The only place I could find that word in this thread is in your post. As far as I know, there is no procedure for freezing/vitrifying a person that is reversible at the moment. The whole field relies on future technology which has not yet been invented. It assumes that technological and medical expertise will continue to grow until they reach a point where they can reanimate “dead” tissue. Reliable cryogenics do not (unfortunately) yet exist.
DaLovin’ Dj
Ladies Man 
Stop spinning those records and take a gander at the OP
Ah yes I want the liver from the old dying diseased guy.
Perhaps but again slave labor from the old diseased guy is probably not that useful.
I imagine it takes a certain amount of power and resources to run the cryogenic facilities. I think they would be shut down long before society is reduced to eating frozen corpses. I don’t think this one counts as reviving though. Also shouldn’t this be Food for Opal?
Option 1 probably does not count as really reviving either.
gazpacho:
A guy dying of a brain tumor might have a perfectly good heart or kidney, and they’d probably have to wake him up to get his medical history.
They can take the old diseased guy, and give him the magic futuristic cure for whatever ails him, run him through the rejuvenator and make him a slave for a thousand years.
All the best restaurants show you the lobsters live in a tank, so you can choose them there. Corpsicles will need to be restored to health and brought to top physical condition before they become a succulent food item worthy of the discriminating futuristic gourmand. You’ll probably get to live several months, and get nursed back to health, and fed the finest quality foods, just like a veal calf!
And who says they’ll have tob e reduced to eating corpsicles? It’ll probably be a delicacy.
Scylla
Alright you can get useful organs from the corpsicles. But I will weasel out by saying the person is not really revived and claim victory. If you don’t like this well then you can think ill of me.
As for the rest you are getting silly. No food snot worth his corse sea salt would eat any meat that has been frozen.
**
If they have to be woken up to get their history and brought to a proper degree of fitness and health to make a desirable donor, how are they not woken up?
Normally, no, but the new cryonic techniques alluded (yet unlinked to,) overtly state that no tissue damage will occur. Therefore the well-founded distaste of frozen meat will no longer be founded at all, and no taboo associated with eating it will propagate.
And, I am a gourmand, and a gormet, and I’ll eat frozen meat happily if its properly preserved. I’ll especially take it over a bad piece of fresh meat.
Omaha Steaks has a justifiable reputation in shipping and selling only the very best, and they charge quite a bit. All their steaks are frozen, and they’re quite excellent.
And since you didn’t reply to the slavery thing, I’ll take that point as conceded, too.
I intend to claim a total victory.
If they have to be woken up to get their history and brought to a proper degree of fitness and health to make a desirable donor, how are they not woken up?
When they harvest organs now they do it from a freshly dead body. No need for them ever to be conscious. The organs would be brought to health separately from the body with no need to revive the forzen departed.
I’ll eat frozen meat happily if its properly preserved.
They are going to take away your little tongs for holding the escargot while you fish out the garlic coated goodness from the shell for admitting that.
And since you didn’t reply to the slavery thing, I’ll take that point as conceded, too.
What is their to say about using medical science to rejuvenate corpsicles to use a slaves. If people are willing to own slaves they will get ones cheaper than reviving old sick people.
The freezing is available, as are insurance and cryonics contracts. Successful restoration of humans has not been verified. It is a gamble. Zero restoration vs remote possibility of restoration in the future by benevolent rescuers.
Which is it? Zero possibility or x possibility?
Kind of like believing that stopping aging will be possible within our lifespans.
Who said there is contemporary proof? Just consider that science is progressing at warp speeds compared to the pace of science at the origin of mankind or even when you were born.
For the second time:
DO YOU HAVE A CITE FOR ANY OF THIS???