3 ms·

Freezing Lazarus: The Cryonics of Eternal Life

13 points by kkleiner 18y ago

biohacker42 18y ago
The biggest leap of faith surrounding cryonic preservation - and the greatest omission on the part of its proponents - is the sticky question of consciousness. I can think of bigger leaps of faith. For one, there's the question of what ice does to tissue. Ice crystals shred cells. Some things of small enough volume, like rabbit kidneys, can be frozen faster then ice crystals grow. But the problem is ice crystals also grow when something is unfrozen. And there is no equivalent super fast unfreezing. Unless you count burning. Tissue damage occurs again. So the question if a future technology will ever be able to stitch together a brain shredded by ice crystals is a very important one. If we could just freeze something as simple as a heart, never mind more complicated organs like kidneys, it would save countless lives. I mean organ transplants, not resurrection.
- Femur 18y ago
  >So the question if a future technology will ever be able to stitch together a brain shredded by ice crystals is a very important one. Absolutely! There are so many variables that come into play. Lets say that a significant percentage of brain cells become irreparably damaged; how much of an impact would this have on memory recollection? Perhaps some brain cells cold be repaired; what impact would that have? There are so many unknowns at this point that you are indeed correct that a big leap of faith is involved.
- topynate 18y ago
  "Vitrification" goes a long way towards addressing the specific problem of ice formation. Very rapid cooling is unnecessary. The downside is that you currently have to have your body removed prior to neuropreservation. I don't discount the other serious challenges of cryonics, like fracturing and cryoprotectant toxicity.
Femur 18y ago
This is probably the third submission for cryonics related articles this month. I wonder why it is suddenly becoming a popular topic. I personally am signed up to be preserved at Alcor (I am the 830-somthing person to do so). I am happy to see cryonics getting this kind of coverage. I recognize that cryonic preservation is a HUGE leap of faith. But, given the low cost ($40 a month for Alcor membership + New York Life insurance) I think the risk is worth it. This is especially true given the popular alternatives: being put under dirt or turned into ashes. Edit: changed 'target' to 'topic'
- CaptainMorgan 18y ago
  This is the part I found most inviting about the whole process; the fact that it's covered by life insurance? Wow! And you raise the excellent point of options, what are the better options? Cremated? no thanks... Six feet under? I'd rather not sit to rot. I find that given this preservation is easily accessible by insurance, I would expect more people to sign up for it. I know I'm considering it on the options alone... what do you have to lose? Either way, as the article points out, the decision is based on faith... but maybe it also comes down to taste and a little bit of morality or how you were brought up (there's also logic to consider if one is educated). Maybe some things to be lost are if one is to be resurrected, pushing the consciousness aside, one would have to be sure one's estate is preserved too- otherwise, one might come back homeless. Also, could you live 100 years from now, without any of your family members (except maybe their offspring) because they didn't feel right about doing it? Very interesting and thought provoking article.
  - Femur 18y ago
    >This is the part I found most inviting about the whole process; the fact that it's covered by life insurance? I know! It is a pretty sweet deal. >I would expect more people to sign up for it. I totally agree. From my perspective, i would think cryonics would be MUCH more popular. I think it has to do with the fact that death and dying are just plain touchy subjects that people don't like to think about. > I know I'm considering it on the options alone... what do you have to lose? Not much; just some money. Signing up is not hard and I highly recommend it if you are seriously considering it. >you're basing your decision on faith This is true and as an educated person, I have trouble with this reliance on faith. But I do have "faith" (rather I believe in the likelihood) that man will solve problems. We will discover the Higgs Boson, we will go to mars, we will clone a human and we will figure out a way to wake these Corpse-Popsicles up. If other want to call that faith, then faith I have.
Splines 18y ago
This week's "This American Life" aired an interview (from last year) with the guy who was in the middle of the Chatsworth Disaster: http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=354 http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=354 I can empathize with Bob Nelson - it seems like things got out of control and he just couldn't say no (many, many times), nor could he admit he made a mistake.
philwelch 18y ago
The interesting thing about cryogenic preservation is, there's no downside (you just stay dead) and a pretty awesome upside (you get resurrected centuries later in a world where we have the technology to resurrect the dead). There's no "leap of faith" involved here, just the recognition that if all else fails, you lose nothing. OK, I guess screwing your kids out of $150,000 worth of life insurance money is a downside too.
- Femur 18y ago
  >OK, I guess screwing your kids out of $150,000 worth of life insurance money is a downside too. What kids?
- Radix 18y ago
  Pascal's Wager
  - philwelch 18y ago
    Pascal's Wager breaks down as soon as you posit more than one competing religion. Cryogenics doesn't have the same problem. Pascal's Wager also requires you to actually believe something. Belief is neither voluntary nor governed by rational wagering. A cryogenics user doesn't have to actually believe he'll be resurrected to sign up for cryogenics, though.
    - Radix 18y ago
      Good points. Thank you. You've clearly articulated why I rejected Pascal's wager when I thought of it. I'm not sure I would have communicated as well to some other if I needed to.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
I plan on signing up for this -- I've just been procrastinating. I have no reason to doubt that within 2 or 3 thousand years they'll be able to bring these "corpse-sicles" back to life, and I want to see what the world looks like then!

13 points by kkleiner 18y ago

The biggest leap of faith surrounding cryonic preservation - and the greatest omission on the part of its proponents - is the sticky question of consciousness. I can think of bigger leaps of faith. For one, there's the question of what ice does to tissue. Ice crystals shred cells. Some things of small enough volume, like rabbit kidneys, can be frozen faster then ice crystals grow. But the problem is ice crystals also grow when something is unfrozen. And there is no equivalent super fast unfreezing. Unless you count burning. Tissue damage occurs again. So the question if a future technology will ever be able to stitch together a brain shredded by ice crystals is a very important one. If we could just freeze something as simple as a heart, never mind more complicated organs like kidneys, it would save countless lives. I mean organ transplants, not resurrection.

Femur 18y ago
>So the question if a future technology will ever be able to stitch together a brain shredded by ice crystals is a very important one. Absolutely! There are so many variables that come into play. Lets say that a significant percentage of brain cells become irreparably damaged; how much of an impact would this have on memory recollection? Perhaps some brain cells cold be repaired; what impact would that have? There are so many unknowns at this point that you are indeed correct that a big leap of faith is involved.
topynate 18y ago
"Vitrification" goes a long way towards addressing the specific problem of ice formation. Very rapid cooling is unnecessary. The downside is that you currently have to have your body removed prior to neuropreservation. I don't discount the other serious challenges of cryonics, like fracturing and cryoprotectant toxicity.

Femur 18y ago

This is probably the third submission for cryonics related articles this month. I wonder why it is suddenly becoming a popular topic. I personally am signed up to be preserved at Alcor (I am the 830-somthing person to do so). I am happy to see cryonics getting this kind of coverage. I recognize that cryonic preservation is a HUGE leap of faith. But, given the low cost ($40 a month for Alcor membership + New York Life insurance) I think the risk is worth it. This is especially true given the popular alternatives: being put under dirt or turned into ashes. Edit: changed 'target' to 'topic'

CaptainMorgan 18y ago
This is the part I found most inviting about the whole process; the fact that it's covered by life insurance? Wow! And you raise the excellent point of options, what are the better options? Cremated? no thanks... Six feet under? I'd rather not sit to rot. I find that given this preservation is easily accessible by insurance, I would expect more people to sign up for it. I know I'm considering it on the options alone... what do you have to lose? Either way, as the article points out, the decision is based on faith... but maybe it also comes down to taste and a little bit of morality or how you were brought up (there's also logic to consider if one is educated). Maybe some things to be lost are if one is to be resurrected, pushing the consciousness aside, one would have to be sure one's estate is preserved too- otherwise, one might come back homeless. Also, could you live 100 years from now, without any of your family members (except maybe their offspring) because they didn't feel right about doing it? Very interesting and thought provoking article.
- Femur 18y ago
  >This is the part I found most inviting about the whole process; the fact that it's covered by life insurance? I know! It is a pretty sweet deal. >I would expect more people to sign up for it. I totally agree. From my perspective, i would think cryonics would be MUCH more popular. I think it has to do with the fact that death and dying are just plain touchy subjects that people don't like to think about. > I know I'm considering it on the options alone... what do you have to lose? Not much; just some money. Signing up is not hard and I highly recommend it if you are seriously considering it. >you're basing your decision on faith This is true and as an educated person, I have trouble with this reliance on faith. But I do have "faith" (rather I believe in the likelihood) that man will solve problems. We will discover the Higgs Boson, we will go to mars, we will clone a human and we will figure out a way to wake these Corpse-Popsicles up. If other want to call that faith, then faith I have.

Splines 18y ago

This week's "This American Life" aired an interview (from last year) with the guy who was in the middle of the Chatsworth Disaster: http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=354 http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=354 I can empathize with Bob Nelson - it seems like things got out of control and he just couldn't say no (many, many times), nor could he admit he made a mistake.

philwelch 18y ago

The interesting thing about cryogenic preservation is, there's no downside (you just stay dead) and a pretty awesome upside (you get resurrected centuries later in a world where we have the technology to resurrect the dead). There's no "leap of faith" involved here, just the recognition that if all else fails, you lose nothing. OK, I guess screwing your kids out of $150,000 worth of life insurance money is a downside too.

Femur 18y ago
>OK, I guess screwing your kids out of $150,000 worth of life insurance money is a downside too. What kids?
Radix 18y ago
Pascal's Wager
- philwelch 18y ago
  Pascal's Wager breaks down as soon as you posit more than one competing religion. Cryogenics doesn't have the same problem. Pascal's Wager also requires you to actually believe something. Belief is neither voluntary nor governed by rational wagering. A cryogenics user doesn't have to actually believe he'll be resurrected to sign up for cryogenics, though.
  - Radix 18y ago
    Good points. Thank you. You've clearly articulated why I rejected Pascal's wager when I thought of it. I'm not sure I would have communicated as well to some other if I needed to.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

I plan on signing up for this -- I've just been procrastinating. I have no reason to doubt that within 2 or 3 thousand years they'll be able to bring these "corpse-sicles" back to life, and I want to see what the world looks like then!