5 ms·

What I don't really get from the article is, why? The article seems to be a technical explanation of the procedure to freeze someone's brain. but it doesn't rea

by pan69 11y ago

What I don't really get from the article is, why? The article seems to be a technical explanation of the procedure to freeze someone's brain. but it doesn't really explain why you'd do that in the first place (probably being revived in the future) and what the actual possibilities of this are.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Insurance. You're betting technology will come far enough to build you a replacement body. You have nothing to lose because your other option is irreversible death.
- Sivart13 11y ago
  Nothing to lose except the money you're spending on an icebox that you could've spent bettering the world you're leaving.
  - zyxley 11y ago
    That presumes that one couldn't see the funding of cryonics organizations as itself a social good, aside from whatever small chance of self-preservation it comes with.
  - orangecat 11y ago
    The cost of freezing yourself is on the order of tens of thousands of dollars, which is much less than most people spend over the course of their lives on things that don't directly improve the world.
  - sanswork 11y ago
    It's not like they are burning the cash. It is being invested and spent. The later portion injected back into the economy.
tene 11y ago
It's last-chance life support. It probably won't work, but it's a hell of a lot more likely to help me survive than leaving my corpse to rot in a box underground. It's a long bet, and not very likely, but it's still better than all the alternatives, at least for me. It's entirely possible that I might choose not to live forever someday if I have the choice, but I'd prefer for it to be my choice when I opt out of the rest of forever, rather than being left up to whenever my body happens to fall apart or be sufficiently damaged.
bennettfeely 11y ago
When you're rich, it's pretty hard to accept the fact that you're eventually going to die and you can't take any of it with you. It would make an interesting theme for a novel, waking from a dreamless sleep only to face again the pains, disappointments and inevitable deterioration of this life, and this time separated from the people who once gave some solace. Don't sign me up.
- beeworker 11y ago
  You don't need to be rich. It costs very little to fund a $30k life insurance policy, which will get your whole body suspended with Cryonics Institute. Alcor is more, $80k for just the head.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >You don't need to be rich. No, but being rich helps with illusions of immortality and going with such a scheme.
    - rictic 11y ago
      You've posted four snide and low-content comments on this post. Do you have anything substantive to say, or are you just here to sneer?
      - coldtea 11y ago
        For some subjects, sneering IS the substantive thing to say. Would you expect "substantive comments" to some post about the discovery of a perpetual motion machine or intelligent design?
    - woofyman 11y ago
      Except you're dead and all your assets now belong to your heirs or some charity you've set up. If you're revived you'll be broke.
      - 11y ago

by pan69 11y ago

toomuchtodo 11y ago

Insurance. You're betting technology will come far enough to build you a replacement body. You have nothing to lose because your other option is irreversible death.

Sivart13 11y ago
Nothing to lose except the money you're spending on an icebox that you could've spent bettering the world you're leaving.
- zyxley 11y ago
  That presumes that one couldn't see the funding of cryonics organizations as itself a social good, aside from whatever small chance of self-preservation it comes with.
- orangecat 11y ago
  The cost of freezing yourself is on the order of tens of thousands of dollars, which is much less than most people spend over the course of their lives on things that don't directly improve the world.
- sanswork 11y ago
  It's not like they are burning the cash. It is being invested and spent. The later portion injected back into the economy.

tene 11y ago

It's last-chance life support. It probably won't work, but it's a hell of a lot more likely to help me survive than leaving my corpse to rot in a box underground. It's a long bet, and not very likely, but it's still better than all the alternatives, at least for me. It's entirely possible that I might choose not to live forever someday if I have the choice, but I'd prefer for it to be my choice when I opt out of the rest of forever, rather than being left up to whenever my body happens to fall apart or be sufficiently damaged.

bennettfeely 11y ago

When you're rich, it's pretty hard to accept the fact that you're eventually going to die and you can't take any of it with you. It would make an interesting theme for a novel, waking from a dreamless sleep only to face again the pains, disappointments and inevitable deterioration of this life, and this time separated from the people who once gave some solace. Don't sign me up.

beeworker 11y ago
You don't need to be rich. It costs very little to fund a $30k life insurance policy, which will get your whole body suspended with Cryonics Institute. Alcor is more, $80k for just the head.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >You don't need to be rich. No, but being rich helps with illusions of immortality and going with such a scheme.
  - rictic 11y ago
    You've posted four snide and low-content comments on this post. Do you have anything substantive to say, or are you just here to sneer?
    - coldtea 11y ago
      For some subjects, sneering IS the substantive thing to say. Would you expect "substantive comments" to some post about the discovery of a perpetual motion machine or intelligent design?
  - woofyman 11y ago
    Except you're dead and all your assets now belong to your heirs or some charity you've set up. If you're revived you'll be broke.
    - 11y ago