Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#21

Post by RajT88 »

Veedrac wrote: post #2

As far as I can tell, the thesis of this article amounts to ‘cryonics is a weird idea, but what's even more weird is believing in the future.’ If you put aside the overt scorn, it's actually a fairly interesting article, and surprisingly upbeat at that.

That scorn seems earned. Little progress has been made on raising the dead in 50 years.

I mean, CPR has gotten better for sure. But that's just for people who are mostly dead. Not going to work on people who are all-the-way-dead.

Anyone claiming high chances of resurrection in some sci-fi future are just blathing.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#22

Post by reaperducer »

beebeepka wrote: post #19
cultureulterior wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

His choice. Not yours.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#23

Post by coldtea »

abletonlive wrote: post #12
drchiu wrote: 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.

>so basically you bought into the status quo. Nothing profound about that

Nothing profound in being scared shitless of it either

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#24

Post by noobermin »

abletonlive wrote: post #12
drchiu wrote: 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.

Ask an oncologist if they feel that is the status quo. 20% of people who get chemotherapy get it within weeks of dying, as if suffering even more will prolong their life. Not all oncologists are like that but many feel harsh treatments which ruin a person's other healthy cells with tons of side effects is worth it for keeping a patient alive just a few months more.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#26

Post by drchiu »

RajT88 wrote: post #17
drchiu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah that. There’s something even more subtle. Experiments run with certain older lines just… failed more. It’s weird. The supervisor would say, “Yeah go to X’s lab and grab theirs.”

Like the reproducibility is contingent on so many factors. Very depressing and tedious.

There’s definitely a lot we don’t know and the knowledge gap is huge. And even if it can be done in the lab, translating some finding to a workable therapeutic is another story.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#27

Post by Quarrelsome »

cultureulterior wrote: post #13
drchiu wrote: 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.

We all die eventually. This isn't the Sandman Universe [1].

[1] https://majorspoilers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sandman...

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#28

Post by wombatpm »

User23 wrote: post #6

Was it Niven or Heinlein that speculated people in the future would be like screw you popsicles, we need organ donors?

Niven also had the idea that cryopreservation failed, but the the frozen brains could be liquified to extract the RNA encoded memories and injected into criminals who had been mind wiped. See World Out of Time, Integral Trees, and Smoke Ring

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#29

Post by sircastor »

schneems wrote: post #9

If you like sci-fi the “bobiverse” series that starts with We Are Legion (We Are Bob) is good and use cryogenics as a central part of the setup. One question it explores: what exactly might people in the future want to do with the consciousness that have been frozen (hint it might not be good), and why? Not award winning like Octavia Butler but it’s a fun read.

I very much enjoyed The Bobiverse series, and those parts frightened me a little. I'm a competent programmer, but I think faced with the challenge of writing (for instance) my own VR to maintain a semblance of self would require a lot of self-discipline. I'd probably end up driving a garbage truck as was suggested early in the first book...

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#30

Post by Spooky23 »

reaperducer wrote: post #22
beebeepka wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

His choice. Not yours.

It’s funny on HN tonight. We have one thread where a county in rural Tennessee lets houses burn down for want of a $75 free or 0.13% tax increase, because freedom.

And here, because freedom, people are advocating for the freedom to pretend death isn’t approaching, at the cost of millions to society.

Post reply on HN