7 ms·

If you want to preserve your genes, then much more reliable way to do that is to have kids. If you want to preserve your ideas, then writing books, articles an

If you want to preserve your genes, then much more reliable way to do that is to have kids. If you want to preserve your ideas, then writing books, articles and public comments on Internet is the way to go. The chance of successful recovery of frozen dead brain after 100 years is very close to zero (assuming that the recovery process was never tested). Kim Suozzi's “1 or 2 percent chance” is extremely optimistic forecast.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> The chance of successful recovery of frozen dead brain after 100 years is very close to zero (assuming that the recovery process was never tested). Kim Suozzi's “1 or 2 percent chance” is extremely optimistic forecast. While it's impossible to predict whether you'll be able to be revived it doesn't sit right with me that you, and many others, are making predictions about how future medical technology will work. Honestly, if we can keep progressing as quickly as we have been, it wouldn't surprise me that we couldn't do it after X years but could do it after X + Y years. Meaning if at some point we have the technology to start reviving people but can't do it reliably then wait another Y amounts of years and there is a significantly better chance. Honestly, unless the brain is just completely ruined or something bad happens to the handling of the brains, it wouldn't surprise me if they're all eventually revivable. At this point we may be talking 200+ years away but they're frozen, who cares?
- dennisgorelik 11y ago
  Making predictions is the main way to test out theories. > but they're frozen, who cares? That is another problem with cryonics: why would future civilization care about dead brains frozen 200 years ago? Imagine that we already have technology that can unfreeze and revive people. And we just found 100,000 frozen medieval people to unfreeze. So for the same price we can either unfreeze and revive 100,000 people or we can extend lives of 100,000 modern people who are facing terminal illness today. How many medieval people do you think we would unfreeze&revive given such choice?
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    > Making predictions is the main way to test out theories. Only if you can then test those predictions otherwise they're kinda useless beyond philosophical reasons. > How many medieval people do you think we would unfreeze&revive given such choice? That is a false choice; why are the resources constrained so that the choice is between reviving 100,000 people or extending the lives of 100,000 people? Arguably we should have more resources in the future than today, more professionals, etc so why can't they do two things? Have we stopped scientific research to the point where no one is concentrating on historic man or reviving past humans? People are curious, obviously we would do it. At the very least it would be interesting science. Can we bring back people frozen 200 years ago? Who knows until we try!
    - dennisgorelik 11y ago
      > why are the resources constrained Because resources are always constrained. The only difference is the level of constraint. Consider slightly modified choice: between "extending lives of 1M modern people + revival of 0.1M medieval people" vs "extending lives of 1.1M modern people". Or another choice: "Revival of 1M medieval people" vs "producing 1M clones of modern people". Curiosity about history would make sure that some medieval people would be revived. May be a thousand total. After that resources would be redirected toward cloning best performing modern version of people.
      - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
        > Because resources are always constrained. Today sure. Tomorrow? Probably. But if you subscribe to the Kardashev scale then we'll likely become a type 2 or 3 civilization at which point I would consider it very likely that we are resource constrained to the point where this can't be done. I just don't think that would make sense. When we become a type 1 we still might not have any real resource issues but that's harder to predict. So why wouldn't we revive everyone at some point? Seems silly to just let everyone thaw if we have the technology and resources at some point.
        11y ago

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

> The chance of successful recovery of frozen dead brain after 100 years is very close to zero (assuming that the recovery process was never tested). Kim Suozzi's “1 or 2 percent chance” is extremely optimistic forecast. While it's impossible to predict whether you'll be able to be revived it doesn't sit right with me that you, and many others, are making predictions about how future medical technology will work. Honestly, if we can keep progressing as quickly as we have been, it wouldn't surprise me that we couldn't do it after X years but could do it after X + Y years. Meaning if at some point we have the technology to start reviving people but can't do it reliably then wait another Y amounts of years and there is a significantly better chance. Honestly, unless the brain is just completely ruined or something bad happens to the handling of the brains, it wouldn't surprise me if they're all eventually revivable. At this point we may be talking 200+ years away but they're frozen, who cares?

dennisgorelik 11y ago
Making predictions is the main way to test out theories. > but they're frozen, who cares? That is another problem with cryonics: why would future civilization care about dead brains frozen 200 years ago? Imagine that we already have technology that can unfreeze and revive people. And we just found 100,000 frozen medieval people to unfreeze. So for the same price we can either unfreeze and revive 100,000 people or we can extend lives of 100,000 modern people who are facing terminal illness today. How many medieval people do you think we would unfreeze&revive given such choice?
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > Making predictions is the main way to test out theories. Only if you can then test those predictions otherwise they're kinda useless beyond philosophical reasons. > How many medieval people do you think we would unfreeze&revive given such choice? That is a false choice; why are the resources constrained so that the choice is between reviving 100,000 people or extending the lives of 100,000 people? Arguably we should have more resources in the future than today, more professionals, etc so why can't they do two things? Have we stopped scientific research to the point where no one is concentrating on historic man or reviving past humans? People are curious, obviously we would do it. At the very least it would be interesting science. Can we bring back people frozen 200 years ago? Who knows until we try!
  - dennisgorelik 11y ago
    > why are the resources constrained Because resources are always constrained. The only difference is the level of constraint. Consider slightly modified choice: between "extending lives of 1M modern people + revival of 0.1M medieval people" vs "extending lives of 1.1M modern people". Or another choice: "Revival of 1M medieval people" vs "producing 1M clones of modern people". Curiosity about history would make sure that some medieval people would be revived. May be a thousand total. After that resources would be redirected toward cloning best performing modern version of people.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      > Because resources are always constrained. Today sure. Tomorrow? Probably. But if you subscribe to the Kardashev scale then we'll likely become a type 2 or 3 civilization at which point I would consider it very likely that we are resource constrained to the point where this can't be done. I just don't think that would make sense. When we become a type 1 we still might not have any real resource issues but that's harder to predict. So why wouldn't we revive everyone at some point? Seems silly to just let everyone thaw if we have the technology and resources at some point.
      - 11y ago