Live data from Hacker News

What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

bigthink.com

11–20 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#11
The article refers to cryonic storage units as Dewars:

The vacuum flask was designed and invented by Scottish scientist Sir James Dewar in 1892 as a result of his research in the field of cryogenics and is sometimes called a Dewar flask in his honour. While performing experiments in determining the specific heat of the element palladium, Dewar made a brass chamber that he enclosed in another chamber to keep the palladium at its desired temperature. He evacuated the air between the two chambers, creating a partial vacuum to keep the temperature of the contents stable. Dewar refused to patent his invention, and the flask, as developed by others using new materials such as glass and aluminium, became a significant tool for chemical experiments and also a common household item.

Dewar's design was quickly transformed into a commercial item in 1904 as two German glassblowers, Reinhold Burger and Albert Aschenbrenner, discovered that it could be used to keep cold drinks cold and warm drinks warm and invented a more robust flask design, which was suited for everyday use. . . . In his subsequent attempt to claim the rights to the invention, Dewar instead lost a court case to the company.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#12
post #10

Years ago when I was in medical school, I concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. There's something tremendously philosophically satisfying to recognizing that death is just the recycling of life so that new life can happen.

This is the mindset of most of the medical field so basically you bought into the status quo. Nothing profound about that. Those that are interested in longevity reject such notions because it leads to very little research in how to prolong life, or see death as a disease worth curing.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#13
post #10

Years ago when I was in medical school, I concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. There's something tremendously philosophically satisfying to recognizing that death is just the recycling of life so that new life can happen.

I don't agree, and you shouldn't force those of us who don't agree to die.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#14
post #10

Years ago when I was in medical school, I concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. There's something tremendously philosophically satisfying to recognizing that death is just the recycling of life so that new life can happen.

This is the mindset of most of the medical field so basically you bought into the status quo. Nothing profound about that. Those that are interested in longevity reject such notions because it leads to very little research in how to prolong life, or see death as a disease worth curing.

I suppose what I didn’t reveal is that I spent a lot of time before medicine trying to coax cells whether in a culture or some other medium to grow in the way I wanted it to grow. And it was hard. It’s been a while, but if I could recall correctly, cells tended to have a finiteness in their very nature. I think at some subconscious level, I interpreted this as nature’s way of expressing that is how things are designed to be.

I don’t do life science anymore, but deal with computers now. And it’s a whole lot more predictable and malleable. (Heck, it’s easy if I were to compare it to running gels or prepping cell lines.)

But I would be ecstatic if I could witness some science fiction level advancement in this field in my lifetime. I doubt it, but I would be amazed should it happen.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#15
post #10

Years ago when I was in medical school, I concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. There's something tremendously philosophically satisfying to recognizing that death is just the recycling of life so that new life can happen.

I don't agree, and you shouldn't force those of us who don't agree to die.

No post body was provided.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#17
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the mindset of most of the medical field so basically you bought into the status quo. Nothing profound about that. Those that are interested in longevity reject such notions because it leads to very little research in how to prolong life, or see death as a disease worth curing.

I suppose what I didn’t reveal is that I spent a lot of time before medicine trying to coax cells whether in a culture or some other medium to grow in the way I wanted it to grow. And it was hard. It’s been a while, but if I could recall correctly, cells tended to have a finiteness in their very nature. I think at some subconscious level, I interpreted this as nature’s way of expressing that is how things are designe…

> It’s been a while, but if I could recall correctly, cells tended to have a finiteness in their very nature.

This is known: https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Hayflick_limit

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#18
This actually reminds me of something I was thinking about a couple days ago. You know how people can be resuscitated after hours with their hearts stopped, if they were in near-freezing conditions? Like people who have drowned in frozen lakes and then been brought back hours later? Someone coined the phrase, "You're not dead until you're warm and dead." Well, I wonder if that could be done long term. I'm guessing all the body's processes would be dramatically slowed in such a scenario, giving similar benefits to cryopreservation. Presumably it would come with many new problems (I doubt the brain would survive long term like that without at least some circulation of oxygenated blood for starters), but it's at least conceivable those would be easier to solve than the problem of freezing and thawing a body without irreversible damage.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#19
post #10

Years ago when I was in medical school, I concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. There's something tremendously philosophically satisfying to recognizing that death is just the recycling of life so that new life can happen.

I don't agree, and you shouldn't force those of us who don't agree to die.

You'd have someone else wipe your ass rather than embrace death? How dignified.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#20
post #10

Years ago when I was in medical school, I concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. There's something tremendously philosophically satisfying to recognizing that death is just the recycling of life so that new life can happen.

I don't agree, and you shouldn't force those of us who don't agree to die.

You're going to die eventually whether you like it or not. Better to get comfortable with this fact, rather than fight it.
Post reply on HN