3 ms·

> and I don't really get how it's not a bigger operation yet. Overpriced insurance policy based on pseudoscience implemented by a shady industry. What is not t

by nikcub 12y ago

> and I don't really get how it's not a bigger operation yet. Overpriced insurance policy based on pseudoscience implemented by a shady industry. What is not to like.

kvee 12y ago
Not sure what you mean. It's not pseudoscience or shady. Still, that's the problem! It's probably physically possible, but we're not making much scientific progress towards making it happen. When I mention cryonics people tend to respond very negatively without engaging rationally. More so than with most anything else. It's sad that it's something you can't say even here on hn. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > It's probably physically possible Says who ? Just like it may be physically possible to create immortal humans, but it's extremely unlikely we find a way to make it happen anytime soon, and in the meantime your frozen body will be left to rot over time faster than science progresses in that field.
baddox 12y ago
I'm not sure how you can call it "pseudoscience," unless they're making false guarantees about current technology, or if it can be proven that current freezing doesn't prevent information-theoretical death.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > I'm not sure how you can call it "pseudoscience," unless they're making false guarantees about current technology ... The term "pseudoscience" can be applied to a true result as well as a false one. The term refers, not to the result, but to how it was acquired. An astrologer may predict that you will have a nice day. If you then have a nice day, does that make astrology science?
  - baddox 12y ago
    True. My point is that it's not pseudoscience unless they're claiming that an unfreezing process already exists (that's just lying), or if they're claiming an unfreezing process existing in the future is possible and you can show that it's not possible.
- serf 12y ago
  it's an industry that's based on a bet that the damage caused by current day cryogenics will be repairable in the future, compounded with the bet that the problem which instantiated the use of cryogenics for the individual in the first place will have also been solved. I could also sell coal to people that would hope to use it in their 3D printers in the near future to construct their own diamonds, or flight goggles for our futures' flying cars. It's not pseudo-science, but not because it's trust-worthy; it's not pseudo-science because Alcor is very careful with their image and wording so as to flank that issue entirely.
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    Actually, it's using a proven process. A rabbit kidney has already been vitrified, then restored and implanted into another that remained healthy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781097/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781097/

by nikcub 12y ago

> and I don't really get how it's not a bigger operation yet. Overpriced insurance policy based on pseudoscience implemented by a shady industry. What is not to like.

kvee 12y ago

Not sure what you mean. It's not pseudoscience or shady. Still, that's the problem! It's probably physically possible, but we're not making much scientific progress towards making it happen. When I mention cryonics people tend to respond very negatively without engaging rationally. More so than with most anything else. It's sad that it's something you can't say even here on hn. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

ekianjo 12y ago
> It's probably physically possible Says who ? Just like it may be physically possible to create immortal humans, but it's extremely unlikely we find a way to make it happen anytime soon, and in the meantime your frozen body will be left to rot over time faster than science progresses in that field.

baddox 12y ago

I'm not sure how you can call it "pseudoscience," unless they're making false guarantees about current technology, or if it can be proven that current freezing doesn't prevent information-theoretical death.

lutusp 12y ago
> I'm not sure how you can call it "pseudoscience," unless they're making false guarantees about current technology ... The term "pseudoscience" can be applied to a true result as well as a false one. The term refers, not to the result, but to how it was acquired. An astrologer may predict that you will have a nice day. If you then have a nice day, does that make astrology science?
- baddox 12y ago
  True. My point is that it's not pseudoscience unless they're claiming that an unfreezing process already exists (that's just lying), or if they're claiming an unfreezing process existing in the future is possible and you can show that it's not possible.
serf 12y ago
it's an industry that's based on a bet that the damage caused by current day cryogenics will be repairable in the future, compounded with the bet that the problem which instantiated the use of cryogenics for the individual in the first place will have also been solved. I could also sell coal to people that would hope to use it in their 3D printers in the near future to construct their own diamonds, or flight goggles for our futures' flying cars. It's not pseudo-science, but not because it's trust-worthy; it's not pseudo-science because Alcor is very careful with their image and wording so as to flank that issue entirely.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Actually, it's using a proven process. A rabbit kidney has already been vitrified, then restored and implanted into another that remained healthy. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781097/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781097/