3 ms·

I'd like to quote one of my favorite songs: "You could not feel sadness if you've never tasted joy; that's the curse of humans - born in passion you destroy"

I'd like to quote one of my favorite songs: "You could not feel sadness if you've never tasted joy; that's the curse of humans - born in passion you destroy" While I find the concept of cryonics fascinating, and feel the science should be researched more, I also feel death is important. Not only is it a natural part of life, but it's also the catalyst that enables enjoyment. I'd be extremely apathetic towards everything if I knew I'd live forever. And then, there comes the sociological problems associated with resurrecting the dead. Edit: Some people seem to have misunderstood: My comments about living forever is in direct reference to what's stated in the article, not what's realistic.

lincolnq 15y ago
I agree that there are problems, but at any given time, with the choice between life and death, would you really ever pick death? Check out "Transhumanism as Simplified Humanism": http://singinst.org/blog/2007/06/16/transhumanism-as-simplified-humanism http://singinst.org/blog/2007/06/16/transhumanism-as-simplif...
bryanlarsen 15y ago
You've bought into your mind's rationalization. Death is scary, so society and your own mind builds all sorts of weird rationalizations to make it less so. I don't know how old you are, but your current life expectancy is likely much greater than the number of years you've already lived. So the difference between of life without cryonics and life with it is "I will probably live a long time" and "I will probably live a very long time." There is still death in a world with cryonics. Traumatic accidents will still put people beyond recovery, the same with some diseases. Many people will be frozen but never reanimated. In the first world in 2011, death occurs but is rare. Cryonics will increase the rarity but that's all.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  I'm pretty young, yeah, and perhaps I'll see things differently when I'm older. As for my comments about "living forever", I'm directly referencing what they stated in the article, rather than what's plausible. I'm fully aware of the differences. I'm just trying to illustrate that, at least psychologically, the worth of life is depreciated.
  - rictic 15y ago
    It still sounds like the mental bias of post-hoc justification. The malnourished value food more and those who have an imminent terminal condition feel every moment more intensely, but that doesn't mean it is better to be so. None of sound mind should be forced to take life-saving treatment, but in my view it is a good to have the option.
felipemnoa 15y ago
There is no such thing as living forever. We may be able to extend our lives to thousands of years, but it will not be forever. Notice that even species that have lived for millions of years die off. Eventually something will kill you, either an accident, a malfunction on whatever is keeping you healthy, or another person with a hammer. Thrust me, death will always be with us. As a side note, people cite overpopulation as one of the problems of people not dying. I don't think this will ever be a problem. We will naturally adjust. If you are going to live for hundreds or even thousands of years would you really have kids when you are only 25-30 years old? I imagine people will wait until they've reached 30 or 50% of their life span simply because there is just no rush.
- malnourish 15y ago
  >I imagine people will wait until they've reached 30 or 50% of their life span simply because there is just no rush. The biggest problem here is that we would need a change in human sex characteristics. We would have to change the way a female matures so that she would be able to (healthfully) breed at that age, otherwise should she desire children, she would have to have them at a (relative to long lifespan) very young age. One other proposition would be the secure storage of her eggs.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    We can already freeze human eggs just fine. Heck, if you count zygotes you could say we've already brought people back from cryogenic storage.
  - barry-cotter 15y ago
    Stem cells dude, they're totipotent[0]. Work is ongoing into infertility treatments based on them too[1]. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_potency#Totipotency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_potency#Totipotency [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Infertility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Infertilit...

lincolnq 15y ago

I agree that there are problems, but at any given time, with the choice between life and death, would you really ever pick death? Check out "Transhumanism as Simplified Humanism": http://singinst.org/blog/2007/06/16/transhumanism-as-simplified-humanism http://singinst.org/blog/2007/06/16/transhumanism-as-simplif...

bryanlarsen 15y ago

You've bought into your mind's rationalization. Death is scary, so society and your own mind builds all sorts of weird rationalizations to make it less so. I don't know how old you are, but your current life expectancy is likely much greater than the number of years you've already lived. So the difference between of life without cryonics and life with it is "I will probably live a long time" and "I will probably live a very long time." There is still death in a world with cryonics. Traumatic accidents will still put people beyond recovery, the same with some diseases. Many people will be frozen but never reanimated. In the first world in 2011, death occurs but is rare. Cryonics will increase the rarity but that's all.

Shenglong 15y ago
I'm pretty young, yeah, and perhaps I'll see things differently when I'm older. As for my comments about "living forever", I'm directly referencing what they stated in the article, rather than what's plausible. I'm fully aware of the differences. I'm just trying to illustrate that, at least psychologically, the worth of life is depreciated.
- rictic 15y ago
  It still sounds like the mental bias of post-hoc justification. The malnourished value food more and those who have an imminent terminal condition feel every moment more intensely, but that doesn't mean it is better to be so. None of sound mind should be forced to take life-saving treatment, but in my view it is a good to have the option.

felipemnoa 15y ago

There is no such thing as living forever. We may be able to extend our lives to thousands of years, but it will not be forever. Notice that even species that have lived for millions of years die off. Eventually something will kill you, either an accident, a malfunction on whatever is keeping you healthy, or another person with a hammer. Thrust me, death will always be with us. As a side note, people cite overpopulation as one of the problems of people not dying. I don't think this will ever be a problem. We will naturally adjust. If you are going to live for hundreds or even thousands of years would you really have kids when you are only 25-30 years old? I imagine people will wait until they've reached 30 or 50% of their life span simply because there is just no rush.

malnourish 15y ago
>I imagine people will wait until they've reached 30 or 50% of their life span simply because there is just no rush. The biggest problem here is that we would need a change in human sex characteristics. We would have to change the way a female matures so that she would be able to (healthfully) breed at that age, otherwise should she desire children, she would have to have them at a (relative to long lifespan) very young age. One other proposition would be the secure storage of her eggs.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  We can already freeze human eggs just fine. Heck, if you count zygotes you could say we've already brought people back from cryogenic storage.
- barry-cotter 15y ago
  Stem cells dude, they're totipotent[0]. Work is ongoing into infertility treatments based on them too[1]. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_potency#Totipotency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_potency#Totipotency [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Infertility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Infertilit...