36 ms·

Cryonic preservation might or might not be possible, this is clearly a difficult process but we're never going to find out without trying. Dead people have no

Cryonic preservation might or might not be possible, this is clearly a difficult process but we're never going to find out without trying. Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage.

cortesoft 4y ago
> Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage. Umm, people still alive have use for money. The money could go towards helping the lives of the living, so it absolutely is a waste.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  Well, if we accept the reality that the wealthy people doing this weren't going to have that money taxed away, I'd rather it go into a scientific pursuit that might have some payoff than just go into some generationally wealthy kids trust fund
- veilrap 4y ago
  The people running the Cryo business are living people who get paid for the task. No more wasteful than any other relatively benign thing someone is going to spend their money on.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Yeah, we should expropriate the assets of [Nonprofit that does thing I don’t like] to spend it on [thing I like]. Almost everything people in rich countries do is a ridiculous luxury compared to the fact that it costs about $1,000 to save someone from dying of malaria. Most of everything humans do is clearly a waste. We can’t even get it together to prepare for the next pandemic, never mind existential risk. This is besides the fact that nothing matters. There’s no God to ascribe meaning to things. Things only matter if they matter to you.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    I never said we should take the money or even that we should prevent them from wasting their money on cryonics… I was simply stating it was still a waste of money. I can tell someone they are wasting their money without forcing them to stop.
- knodi123 4y ago
  The dead people don't freeze the money. They spend it on research. Once it's spent, it's in circulation, going around helping the lives of the living.
  - alex_young 4y ago
    Money is a surrogate for labor. It costs labor to build cryogenic tombs, and to maintain them in perpetuity. This labor is a cost the living incur, which some may argue could be better spent on, say, educating people about biological science and the realities of cellular degradation.
    - herewulf 4y ago
      There was no doubt at least one Ancient Egyptian with the same opinion. So maybe there is a future tourism or archaeological opportunity here?
- soheil 4y ago
  Also it was their money before they died. Who are you to say what they should or shouldn't do with it? There is absolutely benefit in doing this type of research even if there is only a small chance that it ends up working.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  As long as we're going down that route, end-of-life medical care is also quite costly. I wonder: With economies of scale, could cryonics actually become cheaper than end-of-life medical care? Currently the ballpark cost of cryonics is similar to health insurance: https://www.alcor.org/membership/ https://www.alcor.org/membership/ It wouldn't shock me if cryopreserving terminally ill people would save money overall, given economies of scale. I would certainly prefer cryopreservation over terminal illness! https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay...
chrisfosterelli 4y ago
This is my take too. Even modern cryonics is crude, but it's still better information preservation than the current approach of letting the body decompose and dissipate entirely. The article covers the state of the physical complications quite well. I doubt we will be able to reverse the physical damage and safely reanimate before we learn how to digitize people, so I think the best bet is likely going to be in digitizing the brain after death. Even if that comes with some damage, we know the brain is pretty plastic and functions well enough even with entire areas missing. Still seems like a reach. But what's the other option? You can't take the money with you and there's no better alternatives if you would like more time.
Rubinsalamander 4y ago
And also would be great for organ donations.

cortesoft 4y ago

> Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage. Umm, people still alive have use for money. The money could go towards helping the lives of the living, so it absolutely is a waste.

thatguy0900 4y ago
Well, if we accept the reality that the wealthy people doing this weren't going to have that money taxed away, I'd rather it go into a scientific pursuit that might have some payoff than just go into some generationally wealthy kids trust fund
veilrap 4y ago
The people running the Cryo business are living people who get paid for the task. No more wasteful than any other relatively benign thing someone is going to spend their money on.
barry-cotter 4y ago
Yeah, we should expropriate the assets of [Nonprofit that does thing I don’t like] to spend it on [thing I like]. Almost everything people in rich countries do is a ridiculous luxury compared to the fact that it costs about $1,000 to save someone from dying of malaria. Most of everything humans do is clearly a waste. We can’t even get it together to prepare for the next pandemic, never mind existential risk. This is besides the fact that nothing matters. There’s no God to ascribe meaning to things. Things only matter if they matter to you.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  I never said we should take the money or even that we should prevent them from wasting their money on cryonics… I was simply stating it was still a waste of money. I can tell someone they are wasting their money without forcing them to stop.
knodi123 4y ago
The dead people don't freeze the money. They spend it on research. Once it's spent, it's in circulation, going around helping the lives of the living.
- alex_young 4y ago
  Money is a surrogate for labor. It costs labor to build cryogenic tombs, and to maintain them in perpetuity. This labor is a cost the living incur, which some may argue could be better spent on, say, educating people about biological science and the realities of cellular degradation.
  - herewulf 4y ago
    There was no doubt at least one Ancient Egyptian with the same opinion. So maybe there is a future tourism or archaeological opportunity here?
soheil 4y ago
Also it was their money before they died. Who are you to say what they should or shouldn't do with it? There is absolutely benefit in doing this type of research even if there is only a small chance that it ends up working.
ShredKazoo 4y ago
As long as we're going down that route, end-of-life medical care is also quite costly. I wonder: With economies of scale, could cryonics actually become cheaper than end-of-life medical care? Currently the ballpark cost of cryonics is similar to health insurance: https://www.alcor.org/membership/ https://www.alcor.org/membership/ It wouldn't shock me if cryopreserving terminally ill people would save money overall, given economies of scale. I would certainly prefer cryopreservation over terminal illness! https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay...

chrisfosterelli 4y ago

This is my take too. Even modern cryonics is crude, but it's still better information preservation than the current approach of letting the body decompose and dissipate entirely. The article covers the state of the physical complications quite well. I doubt we will be able to reverse the physical damage and safely reanimate before we learn how to digitize people, so I think the best bet is likely going to be in digitizing the brain after death. Even if that comes with some damage, we know the brain is pretty plastic and functions well enough even with entire areas missing. Still seems like a reach. But what's the other option? You can't take the money with you and there's no better alternatives if you would like more time.

Rubinsalamander 4y ago

And also would be great for organ donations.