Cryonics: Foresight or Fantasy

Great Debates
21

I’ll answer the ‘why would they revive us’ with a hypothetical:

Suppose that tomorrow a dig somewhere unearthed a cache of frozen people. Does anyone doubt that we would do everything we could to revive them?

Or let’s say that we discovered a way today to defrost the current ‘patients’ at the various cryo facilities. Does anyone doubt that we wouldn’t try everything we could to revive them?

If so, what do you think will change?

I suppose if the day came where there were millions of frozen people, someone might say “Why are we doing this?” after reviving the first few thousand, but I doubt it. I think that the question, “Why would they revive people” has exactly as much significance as the question, “Why do we try to save terminal cancer patients?” Answer: Because we revere human life, and do everything we can to try to extend it.

22

Cryonics.org

The Most Affordable Prices Available Anywhere

"Our prices are lower than any other organization – in fact, the most affordable prices anywhere in the world. Our minimum whole-body suspension fee is $28,000.
Search also Life Extention Foundation, Immortalist Philosophy, Geron, Alcor, telomerase, A4M, Robert Ettinger, Ronald Klatz,

23

Or let’s say that we discovered a way today to defrost the current ‘patients’ at the various cryo facilities. Does anyone doubt that we wouldn’t try everything we could to revive them?

I doubt that very much. We might do a few to prove that it could be done. But beyond that no.

24

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**I’ll answer the ‘why would they revive us’ with a hypothetical:

Suppose that tomorrow a dig somewhere unearthed a cache of frozen people. Does anyone doubt that we would do everything we could to revive them?

No. Check out the word ‘we’ in the above post. We would take care.

But Wait! What if bin Laden did the dig? Or uncivilized, hungry tribes in jungle?

Another gamble. Back to complacency.

25

Today is not the time to defrost. Too risky. Wait till medical community is ready. Today is the time to defrost more experimentally trained animals to measure the degree of memory retention. Its the memory of experiences and habits that’s important to preserve.

26

**a03 wrote:

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.**

Which is the same as saying (in 1951) that spaceflight is just around the corner, and in 50 years, we’ll be spending vacations on the moon and Mars!

Now, if you want a real deal, I have some land in Florida I’m trying to sell! Very cheap prices. You’ll love the location, just a few miles east of Miami!

27

First, with respect to the argument that suffering and/or death are a necessary and inevitable part of life, I’d like to point out that humanity’s conception of what is inevitable is always changing. There was a time when the risk of smallpox was inevitable . . . err umm . . . bad example, but you see my point.

Second, with respect to the other questions, such as why would anyone bother to revive you, I think that our thinking is a little over-influenced by science fiction of the 70s and 80s where the world faces crisis after crisis over diminishing resources; most people are mired in poverty, etc. etc.

As I see things, the general trend in the West is for people to get wealthier and healthier over time. IMHO, if technology advances far enough to safely revive frozen people, the costs – monetary, social, etc. – will not be much of an obstacle.

I think that Sam Stone has a good point about reverence for human life. Again, I think that we are over-influenced by science fiction of the 70s and 80s, where life becomes increasingly cheap. The trend as I see it is to spend more and more resources preserving and protecting human life.

28

Ao3:

You’re not even reading your own cites. They’ve brought a few cells back at a time, or a vinegar eel, but there is immense tissue damage that occurs when a body is frozen.

In fact, a body is damaged to such a huge degree on the cellular level when it’s frozen that the chances of bringing it back at any time in the future are essentially nil, a dim hope, a waste of money, and a scam of the worst kind as it takes advantage of people and their families on their deathbed to make a profit based on hyperbole, fraudulent claims and breathless speculation.

If it’s possible, the freezing process is going to be the most crucial part of the process. The way they’re doing it now, they’re preserving dead meat, nothing more.

Link to me where a mammal has been frozen and revived (as you seem to claim in your OP) and I’ll sing a different tune, but it ain’t happening.

The claim of your OP is false. Freezing with today’s technology is a pure waste of money. Worse it’s a scam.

29

Why would they have to wake the person up? I would think a short description of the persons health and WHY he chose to be frozen would be There.

Gotta tell these future people what they have to cure once they start a thawing.

I also think another option is that decendants may want to de-ice Great great great grand uncle.

30

Scylla: I think you’re making too many assumptions about what might be possible. What if Nanobots in the future can enter the frozen body, repairing each cell as they go? When the cell is destroyed, does any information (pattern of rupture, whatever) exist that would allow us to re-create that cell? If so, then it’s not a one-way trip.

Or perhaps we’ll discover enough about how the brain works to be able to map the frozen neurological patterns, then re-create the brain in a whole new cloned body. Or maybe we’ll be able to transfer the contents of the brain into an artificial brain. Who knows?

Another argument: The people frozen today certainly have a much smaller chance of being thawed than people who will be frozen tomorrow, or a decade from tomorrow, because the state of the art is advancing. We’re learning new freezing and storage techniques, and gaining valuable experience in just how to do this successfully. The people paving the way today are part of that process.

When the Jarvik-7 artificial heart was first implanted in a patient, it was a very expensive procedure with virtually no chance of long term success, and a very good chance of killing the person sooner than he would have died without the operation. Does that mean that Barney Clark was bamboozled? Nope. It just means that pioneers are the ones who take all the arrows. Thank god for them.

Anyway, I have a hard time understanding the objection. If a guy wants to spend $100,000 at a miniscule shot at living again, when the alternative is to be dead, why not? I’ve heard all the arguments about how it would be more moral to leave the money to family members, etc., and I don’t buy it. People spend their money in all kinds of ‘selfish’ ways, and they should. So instead of buying a new Porsche Twin Turbo, the guy buys a cryo vat. Where’s the difference?

And finally, even if the person is never revived, the freezing can do some good, because it may give him some comfort that maybe, just maybe, he’ll live another adventure. And his family can hope the same thing. For some people or families this may not be healthy, and for others it might. That’s their business.

If you came down with terminal cancer tomorrow, the prospect of being frozen is like the difference between getting a death sentence and getting booked for a very risky surgery. The psychological benefits of knowing you have a chance might make those last few months on Earth much more bearable, and make the freezing well worth the money.

31

Sam:

You’re speculating on future technology much the same way they were selling shares in companies that claimed to make household robots or would put a helicopter in the backyard of every family in the late 20s.

Such scams led to the blue sky laws.

Speculating about what nanotechnology might be able to do is little different. By your same logic I could suggest that they’ll have time travel in the future, and if you invest your money in a foundation instead of spending it on cryonic preservation, you can make enough to fund a rescue mission back in time to save you before you die. By investing in cryonic preservation you waste that money, and doom yourself.

Whether or not this provides comfort to a dying person is besides the point if it’s defrauding people in their final extremes without any realistic hope of success.

32

It can be argued that many burial traditions are based, in part, on the hope that the deceased will one day be revived.

For example, mummification of ancient pharaohs in Egypt.

As another example, there is a tradition in Judaism that bodies be buried intact (e.g. no cremation). My understanding is that this is done in hopes of revival when the Messiah comes.

I agree with Sam Stone that for many people, the hope of “cheating death” is a source of comfort.

33

Peersa, shut up.

34

I don’t buy the ‘cryonics is a better chance than zero’ argument; I could sell people expensive magic bananas and claim that they might make you live forever and say “it’s a long shot, but it’s a better chance than the grave, which is zero chance”, but saying that something will/might work isn’t the same as making it work.

Anyone for a banana?

35

from cryonics.org:

All these questions are addressed on our web site,

http://www.cryonics.org

Very briefly:

>Animals have been revived after freezing retaining memory.

Hamsters have been revived after half the water in the brains was frozen, and later showed normal behavior. Cat brains, frozen four years at - 20 C, showed relatively good corticograms (similar to EEG) after thawing. Rabbit brain pieces rewarmed from liquid nitrogen temperature have shown coordinated electrical activity in networks of neurons. A few small mammalian organs (rat parathyroid e.g.) have shown normal viability after rewarming from liquid nitrogen temperature.

>chances of bringing it back at any time in the future are essentially nil,

That is a mere assertion of opinion, not a calculation or reasoned argument. Our reasons for optimism are spelled out in full detail, and supported by some of the most knowledgeable people in the world.

>scam of the worst kind as it takes advantage of people and their families on their deathbed to make a profit

That is either a plain lie or an irresponsible guess. The major organizations are non-profit. In the Cryonics Institute, no officer or director is paid or gets financial benefit of any kind.

Long life–

Robert Ettinger

36

forgive me, but I find this very difficult to believe; can we have a cite on that particular point please?

37

I’d like some proof that Cryonics Institute’s claims are legitimate. Has anyone else revived frozen hampsters?

38

Ao3:

And in what scientific journals are the results of these experiments revealed and reviewed?

Nonsense. It’s base on the state of the art, current knowledge and achievable results. Your hopes are based on nothing more than speculation

39

A03:

Oh, and since you have now taken to identifying yourself with the cryonics institute, exactly what is your relationship and credentials in regard to those hallowed halls?

40

I don’t get paid either and I’m not a member, but I’m giving it some serious thought.

The cite is cryonics.org with a www in front of it.

Instead of spending money on another plane, if I buy an insurance policy for cryonics, I might get revived in a time when planes are so affordable that the average family has 3. I do accept some of the basic concepts of Cryonics because they are more fascinating than the dogma of blindly accepting that I have to die before 128 years old. I wonder if the moderators of Straight Dope get paid.

By the way, how do you pronounce “Mangetout”? and what does it mean?