10 ms·

Another person that might be cryopreserved [1], but probably won't be, much like the 150,000 who passed in the last day or so [2]. Many sorts of terminal case c

Another person that might be cryopreserved [1], but probably won't be, much like the 150,000 who passed in the last day or so [2]. Many sorts of terminal case can actually lead to better quality cryopreservation under present legal restrictions [3], in comparison to the drawn out and uncertain end of aging, precisely because they are more rapid and certain in time. (Or might be plastinated [4] in the alternate history thread in which people actually got up and started to do something about death in the late 1930s [5], when the chemical industry started to be up to the task of building a mass plastination concern). If you've made no preparations but still have $200,000 or so sitting around, then the certainty of oblivion is still your choice, even at the last minute. (Most people who are cryopreserved fund it through life insurance taken out decades earlier). No judgement on that choice is offered, as the right to vanish is a good right, just judgement on the fact that while other options do exist, they might be far more available for everyone and better thought of were the world just a little bit different. [1] http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2002/11/cryonics.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2002/11/cryonics.php [2] http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2002/12/death-is-an-outrage-1.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2002/12/death-is-an-outra... [3] http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/02/to-die-in-order-to-live-thoughts-on-cryonics-and-legal-hurdles.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/02/to-die-in-order-t... [4] http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/04/plastinate-everyone.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/04/plastinate-everyo... [5] http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/05/when-did-we-become-suicidal-negligent-barbarians.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/05/when-did-we-becom...

Jach 14y ago
If the world was just a little bit different, this would be upvoted instead of downvoted. It'd be nice if someone could convince Iain to be cryopreserved, and give him that small but non-zero chance of being revived and one day seeing a civilization better than his Culture.
- swombat 14y ago
  I would donate money to a "Cryo-freeze Iain Banks" fund - though I'm sure he has more than enough funds himself.
  - at-fates-hands 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure he would be against cryo: "Firmly restating his atheism, Banks spoke of his belief that death is an important 'part of the totality of life', to be treated realistically, not feared." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      I really wish this were higher in the comment thread.
    - Filligree 14y ago
      Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.
polyfractal 14y ago
Hmm...except that cryopreservation is still, as of this point, a complete crock of shit. Trying to find a necromancer would be more productive. As an ex-biologist, I can assure you that horrible cellular damage is being committed to these "preserved" people. I used to flash-freeze all sorts of cells, ranging from bacteria (e. coli) to animal (IMCD3 and MDCK kidney) to human (Human Embryonic Kidney, Primary cortical and hippocampal neurons). These protocols are pretty simple. Pellet and re-suspend a small vial of cells to dilute out the media, replace with a special preservation media then dunk the entire 5mL vial in a big pot of liquid nitrogen for a few minutes. Then it goes into the deep freezer (-80C). Sadly, even though this is a tiny aliquot that is frozen almost instantly, cell death on thawing and resuspension is immense. Like, it's a good day if 50% of the cells live. It usually doesn't matter, since these cell lines are immortalized and they just start growing again, but it illustrates the point. Despite the most ideal circumstances, cells hate to be frozen. Now, imagine you are trying to flash freeze an entire body. They do this by perfusing preservation media through your blood, relying on your body's circulatory system to get the media in all the right places. This takes time. Perfusing a small mouse with formaldehyde takes at least 5-10 minutes. A human body? Practically ages I would guess. All the while, cells are dieing left and right because they are no longer getting a steady supply of oxygen (and instead a bath of relatively cytotoxic preservation media). When the body is finally perfused fully and dunked into liquid nitrogen...flash freezing isn't immediate. The outer layers freeze much faster than the inner layers. Ok, so just freeze the brain? Same problem as before, just on a slightly smaller scale. Ignoring all the cell death that has been happening for the last hour, how about thawing? Well, let's pretend its a "good day" and 50% of your cells live. That might be ok for your skin, liver, or spleen - they are going to be unhappy but still alive. But 50% of your neurons dieing? Hmm. Also take into account that neurons don't regenerate. You just killed half your brain. Even super optimistic numbers, 70%-80% survival rate, still leave a lot of your brain as goo. This is all just biology. I'm not even touching the morals and ethics of companies that are under no obligation to actually do what you paid them to do (since you are dead).
- FeepingCreature 14y ago
  I'm assuming that as an author of fairly hard sci-fi Banks would not mind overmuch if he was resurrected as a "mere" upload. The point of cryo is once the initial damage is done, no additional information loss to entropy occurs, so you can afford waiting for far-distance supertech to see if your neural behavior is at all reconstructable.
padseeker 14y ago
Everyone that lives that we know of dies eventually. While I would prefer to live as long as possible I think it's important to recognize that. And trying to pitch a 200K solution to a problem that isn't really a problem but rather the nature of life strikes me as inappropriate. If you are that hellbent on this 'solution' send the email directly to the author, but your response smells like a sales pitch which makes me ill. I would downvote you if I could.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
stiff 14y ago
Whole galaxies die, what to say about us poor humans, please do not offend basic physics with this "other option" thing, if there is a single certain thing in the whole universe it is the certainty of change and, as a consequence, death. We might extend lifespan greatly, it is a different thing altogether, it is worth discussing, it might even be a good thing, I don't know, but clinging to a dream of immortality will in my opinion sooner or later lead to a mental breakdown for most people who choose to pursue this path, latest when confronted with serious disease or dying.
- hp50g 14y ago
  This is the most truthful and insightful comment on this thread. Thank you.
- Nursie 14y ago
  As someone that doesn't, ever, want to die... the thought that there is no such thing as forever gives me some comfort. Everything is temporal, we're merely surfing the entropy gradient for a while.
- lsparrish 14y ago
  If you think the pursuit of immortality causes mental breakdowns, can you substantiate this with evidence from psychology journals? If not, this strikes me as unreliable folk wisdom. There is a lot of possible change that does not involve death. I used to buy your argument, but upon reflection I've decided that it does not automatically follow from simple considerations. We need to be a lot smarter to know the answer for sure. Just as negative temperatures are possible, death-free eternities may also be possible. Lifespan increase is certainly a stronger possibility than immortality, and is therefore a stronger motive to pursue cryonics. So why is so much space wasted talking about it every time someone suggests cryonics? The thousand year or so extension we could reasonably expect with a good aging cure and decent public safety is pretty significant regardless of eternal considerations.
nova 14y ago
I feel you. The deathism of this thread, on a site read by technically-oriented people, where problably many agree with the computational theory of mind really makes me lose hope in the human kind. It's not thinking that cryonics is not worth it. That's a reasonable position. I'm undecided myself. It's that response, that fighting death is somehow unethical or naive. That Death is Good, Part of the Cosmos, Don't You Dare, whatever. Man, talk about Stockholm syndrome. Well, fuck it: >>> DEATH IS BAD. <<<< Yes it is. We die because we don't know how to avoid it, not because is good, natural, right or proper. Our bodies are machines that we don't know how to repair. That's all. We may invent lies to make ourselves feel better and maybe that's a natural strategy to cope with the HORROR that is death, but we are still fooling ourselves, and most likely keeping the problem from being solved.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Let's talk about the computational theory of mind. Is it bad to turn off a computer? I have a process running that will continue to do productive work forever. Is it bad to suspend it? If I resume it later, is that not bad? If I intend to resume it later, but forget, is that bad again? There are some things that happened to my physical body that I cannot now, nor never will remember. Is that bad? There are memories I have that my physical body never really experienced. Is it bad that that person never existed? If I forget those, will that be bad? Suffering is bad. Death is the ultimate destiny of all which was once alive. It is tempting for a brain state looking ahead to its demise to say that one or ten or one hundred years is too few, and if we had one thousand, or one million, or one million million, that would be enough. But I know no reason that should be true. I look forward and see a descendant of humanity surviving to witness, in itself, the heat death of the universe. As every resource has been expended to maintain its consciousness, while the last holes fill in with entropy, it remembers everything that has ever happened, and it is looking forward with its dying thoughts to an infinity times an infinity as many lifetimes of nothingness which will follow, and I do not want it to weep that it will cease to be. I want it to stride boldly into oblivion, knowing that it has done its best, and with some glimmer of hope and pride for what, in some yet unconceived corner of possibility space, might be. And I want that peace for every consciousness and form of consciousness, however transient, that experiences itself from now until then, be they animal, vegetable, or mineral. Of course we should fight aging, with every resource we can muster, because aging is suffering. But we should not hate death, because that too is suffering. To bring it back around... Iain M. Banks will die, very soon. Many people here are extremely distraught about this, and I am one of them. He has a choice to make, whether to make some attempt to extend his life at some expense to his remaining quality of life. It sounds as if he will choose not to. Many will, in grief, hate him for that choice. They are grieving, and it is natural, but that idea abstracted is selfish and it is evil. Iain Banks will die, and he will be fine. It is we who grieve who deserve peace, and I and others feel that peace is contained in this truth: Death is okay. It is not great. We do not love it. We can and will work to destroy it. But we will not succeed, and that is -- that must be -- okay.

Jach 14y ago

If the world was just a little bit different, this would be upvoted instead of downvoted. It'd be nice if someone could convince Iain to be cryopreserved, and give him that small but non-zero chance of being revived and one day seeing a civilization better than his Culture.

swombat 14y ago
I would donate money to a "Cryo-freeze Iain Banks" fund - though I'm sure he has more than enough funds himself.
- at-fates-hands 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure he would be against cryo: "Firmly restating his atheism, Banks spoke of his belief that death is an important 'part of the totality of life', to be treated realistically, not feared." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Banks
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    I really wish this were higher in the comment thread.
  - Filligree 14y ago
    Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.

polyfractal 14y ago

Hmm...except that cryopreservation is still, as of this point, a complete crock of shit. Trying to find a necromancer would be more productive. As an ex-biologist, I can assure you that horrible cellular damage is being committed to these "preserved" people. I used to flash-freeze all sorts of cells, ranging from bacteria (e. coli) to animal (IMCD3 and MDCK kidney) to human (Human Embryonic Kidney, Primary cortical and hippocampal neurons). These protocols are pretty simple. Pellet and re-suspend a small vial of cells to dilute out the media, replace with a special preservation media then dunk the entire 5mL vial in a big pot of liquid nitrogen for a few minutes. Then it goes into the deep freezer (-80C). Sadly, even though this is a tiny aliquot that is frozen almost instantly, cell death on thawing and resuspension is immense. Like, it's a good day if 50% of the cells live. It usually doesn't matter, since these cell lines are immortalized and they just start growing again, but it illustrates the point. Despite the most ideal circumstances, cells hate to be frozen. Now, imagine you are trying to flash freeze an entire body. They do this by perfusing preservation media through your blood, relying on your body's circulatory system to get the media in all the right places. This takes time. Perfusing a small mouse with formaldehyde takes at least 5-10 minutes. A human body? Practically ages I would guess. All the while, cells are dieing left and right because they are no longer getting a steady supply of oxygen (and instead a bath of relatively cytotoxic preservation media). When the body is finally perfused fully and dunked into liquid nitrogen...flash freezing isn't immediate. The outer layers freeze much faster than the inner layers. Ok, so just freeze the brain? Same problem as before, just on a slightly smaller scale. Ignoring all the cell death that has been happening for the last hour, how about thawing? Well, let's pretend its a "good day" and 50% of your cells live. That might be ok for your skin, liver, or spleen - they are going to be unhappy but still alive. But 50% of your neurons dieing? Hmm. Also take into account that neurons don't regenerate. You just killed half your brain. Even super optimistic numbers, 70%-80% survival rate, still leave a lot of your brain as goo. This is all just biology. I'm not even touching the morals and ethics of companies that are under no obligation to actually do what you paid them to do (since you are dead).

FeepingCreature 14y ago
I'm assuming that as an author of fairly hard sci-fi Banks would not mind overmuch if he was resurrected as a "mere" upload. The point of cryo is once the initial damage is done, no additional information loss to entropy occurs, so you can afford waiting for far-distance supertech to see if your neural behavior is at all reconstructable.

padseeker 14y ago

Everyone that lives that we know of dies eventually. While I would prefer to live as long as possible I think it's important to recognize that. And trying to pitch a 200K solution to a problem that isn't really a problem but rather the nature of life strikes me as inappropriate. If you are that hellbent on this 'solution' send the email directly to the author, but your response smells like a sales pitch which makes me ill. I would downvote you if I could.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

stiff 14y ago

Whole galaxies die, what to say about us poor humans, please do not offend basic physics with this "other option" thing, if there is a single certain thing in the whole universe it is the certainty of change and, as a consequence, death. We might extend lifespan greatly, it is a different thing altogether, it is worth discussing, it might even be a good thing, I don't know, but clinging to a dream of immortality will in my opinion sooner or later lead to a mental breakdown for most people who choose to pursue this path, latest when confronted with serious disease or dying.

hp50g 14y ago
This is the most truthful and insightful comment on this thread. Thank you.
Nursie 14y ago
As someone that doesn't, ever, want to die... the thought that there is no such thing as forever gives me some comfort. Everything is temporal, we're merely surfing the entropy gradient for a while.
lsparrish 14y ago
If you think the pursuit of immortality causes mental breakdowns, can you substantiate this with evidence from psychology journals? If not, this strikes me as unreliable folk wisdom. There is a lot of possible change that does not involve death. I used to buy your argument, but upon reflection I've decided that it does not automatically follow from simple considerations. We need to be a lot smarter to know the answer for sure. Just as negative temperatures are possible, death-free eternities may also be possible. Lifespan increase is certainly a stronger possibility than immortality, and is therefore a stronger motive to pursue cryonics. So why is so much space wasted talking about it every time someone suggests cryonics? The thousand year or so extension we could reasonably expect with a good aging cure and decent public safety is pretty significant regardless of eternal considerations.

nova 14y ago

I feel you. The deathism of this thread, on a site read by technically-oriented people, where problably many agree with the computational theory of mind really makes me lose hope in the human kind. It's not thinking that cryonics is not worth it. That's a reasonable position. I'm undecided myself. It's that response, that fighting death is somehow unethical or naive. That Death is Good, Part of the Cosmos, Don't You Dare, whatever. Man, talk about Stockholm syndrome. Well, fuck it: >>> DEATH IS BAD. <<<< Yes it is. We die because we don't know how to avoid it, not because is good, natural, right or proper. Our bodies are machines that we don't know how to repair. That's all. We may invent lies to make ourselves feel better and maybe that's a natural strategy to cope with the HORROR that is death, but we are still fooling ourselves, and most likely keeping the problem from being solved.

Cushman 14y ago
Let's talk about the computational theory of mind. Is it bad to turn off a computer? I have a process running that will continue to do productive work forever. Is it bad to suspend it? If I resume it later, is that not bad? If I intend to resume it later, but forget, is that bad again? There are some things that happened to my physical body that I cannot now, nor never will remember. Is that bad? There are memories I have that my physical body never really experienced. Is it bad that that person never existed? If I forget those, will that be bad? Suffering is bad. Death is the ultimate destiny of all which was once alive. It is tempting for a brain state looking ahead to its demise to say that one or ten or one hundred years is too few, and if we had one thousand, or one million, or one million million, that would be enough. But I know no reason that should be true. I look forward and see a descendant of humanity surviving to witness, in itself, the heat death of the universe. As every resource has been expended to maintain its consciousness, while the last holes fill in with entropy, it remembers everything that has ever happened, and it is looking forward with its dying thoughts to an infinity times an infinity as many lifetimes of nothingness which will follow, and I do not want it to weep that it will cease to be. I want it to stride boldly into oblivion, knowing that it has done its best, and with some glimmer of hope and pride for what, in some yet unconceived corner of possibility space, might be. And I want that peace for every consciousness and form of consciousness, however transient, that experiences itself from now until then, be they animal, vegetable, or mineral. Of course we should fight aging, with every resource we can muster, because aging is suffering. But we should not hate death, because that too is suffering. To bring it back around... Iain M. Banks will die, very soon. Many people here are extremely distraught about this, and I am one of them. He has a choice to make, whether to make some attempt to extend his life at some expense to his remaining quality of life. It sounds as if he will choose not to. Many will, in grief, hate him for that choice. They are grieving, and it is natural, but that idea abstracted is selfish and it is evil. Iain Banks will die, and he will be fine. It is we who grieve who deserve peace, and I and others feel that peace is contained in this truth: Death is okay. It is not great. We do not love it. We can and will work to destroy it. But we will not succeed, and that is -- that must be -- okay.