6 ms·

Cryonics involves vitrification, not freezing. Ice crystals do no damage if they never form in the first place. Now the method of achieving vitrification invol

Cryonics involves vitrification, not freezing. Ice crystals do no damage if they never form in the first place. Now the method of achieving vitrification involves pumping the body full of toxic antifreeze. But in principle it's easier to flush the antifreeze out when warming than to reverse ice crystal damage, though the techniques have not yet been worked out. Thankfully it's not necessary for the reversal procedure to exist now for cryonics to be successfully used in preservation for the future.

nradov 7y ago
There is zero chance that a human pumped full of antifreeze today will ever be successfully revised. Cryonics is a total scam by hucksters preying on desperate idiots. And don't bother telling me that it's worth doing if there's even a tiny chance. The chance is exactly 0, and those resources are better spent on the living.
- garmaine 7y ago
  You have perfect knowledge of future technologies?
  - brokenkebab 7y ago
    Doesn't it sound similar to "Prove that I cannot win a billion!" from someone who spends money in casino?
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      There's a big difference between telling someone they aren't going to win in the casino and telling them they have "zero chance" of winning. The later is false and is probably an ineffective argument because it's obviously false.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        Yes, they should have said "roughly zero chance", which is true. They were just rounding down.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ekianjo 7y ago
  You can basically say that anyone living 500 years ago would say "there is zero chance" that what we take for granted today exists at all. Look at the technological achievements of even the past 50 years, most of it could hardly be predicted.
  - ohazi 7y ago
    There's a pretty big difference between the statements: "We are likely to have life extending and resuscitation technologies in 500 years that are better than what we have today." and "The dead rich people in these particular vats of antifreeze have any more than a snowball's chance in hell at being successfully resuscitated." I think the parent's analysis is correct. Your statements, while also correct, don't really refute the issues pointed out by the parent.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      It didn't point out any issues... it just made the unsubstantiated claim that a cryonics patient has no chance of ever being revived. It IS physically possible to revive cryonics patients--as in the laws of physics would permit it, even if we don't have anything near the technology required, yet. This isn't a bold claim but rather a statement of fact with respect to information preservation of the vitrification process, and long-term storage at cryogenic temperatures, both of which are well studied in the context of things like organ donor preservation. So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved. But neither you nor the grandparent actually made any specific claims.
      - daeken 7y ago
        > So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved. I'm signed up to be a cryonics patient when I die, but yeah, the chances are pretty much nil. Personally, I'll take a slightly diminished bank account and a potentially non-zero percent chance of further life over a zero percent chance, but I won't delude myself into thinking that there's effectively any chance of success here.
- tim333 7y ago
  A zero chance is your opinion. I'd estimate there is a high change some of them will come back in some form. I'm more a believer in extracting information to an AI simulation than reanimating the old bodies.
- nwatson 7y ago
  Also, frozen oblivion is better than being brought back by those who will not honor your motivations for being frozen. If it's possible to be brought back, organ-harvesting, post-cryo-slavery, medical-experiment-subject are the likely outcomes.

nradov 7y ago

There is zero chance that a human pumped full of antifreeze today will ever be successfully revised. Cryonics is a total scam by hucksters preying on desperate idiots. And don't bother telling me that it's worth doing if there's even a tiny chance. The chance is exactly 0, and those resources are better spent on the living.

garmaine 7y ago
You have perfect knowledge of future technologies?
- brokenkebab 7y ago
  Doesn't it sound similar to "Prove that I cannot win a billion!" from someone who spends money in casino?
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    There's a big difference between telling someone they aren't going to win in the casino and telling them they have "zero chance" of winning. The later is false and is probably an ineffective argument because it's obviously false.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Yes, they should have said "roughly zero chance", which is true. They were just rounding down.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ekianjo 7y ago
You can basically say that anyone living 500 years ago would say "there is zero chance" that what we take for granted today exists at all. Look at the technological achievements of even the past 50 years, most of it could hardly be predicted.
- ohazi 7y ago
  There's a pretty big difference between the statements: "We are likely to have life extending and resuscitation technologies in 500 years that are better than what we have today." and "The dead rich people in these particular vats of antifreeze have any more than a snowball's chance in hell at being successfully resuscitated." I think the parent's analysis is correct. Your statements, while also correct, don't really refute the issues pointed out by the parent.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    It didn't point out any issues... it just made the unsubstantiated claim that a cryonics patient has no chance of ever being revived. It IS physically possible to revive cryonics patients--as in the laws of physics would permit it, even if we don't have anything near the technology required, yet. This isn't a bold claim but rather a statement of fact with respect to information preservation of the vitrification process, and long-term storage at cryogenic temperatures, both of which are well studied in the context of things like organ donor preservation. So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved. But neither you nor the grandparent actually made any specific claims.
    - daeken 7y ago
      > So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved. I'm signed up to be a cryonics patient when I die, but yeah, the chances are pretty much nil. Personally, I'll take a slightly diminished bank account and a potentially non-zero percent chance of further life over a zero percent chance, but I won't delude myself into thinking that there's effectively any chance of success here.
tim333 7y ago
A zero chance is your opinion. I'd estimate there is a high change some of them will come back in some form. I'm more a believer in extracting information to an AI simulation than reanimating the old bodies.
nwatson 7y ago
Also, frozen oblivion is better than being brought back by those who will not honor your motivations for being frozen. If it's possible to be brought back, organ-harvesting, post-cryo-slavery, medical-experiment-subject are the likely outcomes.