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

41–50 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#41

Post by mrshadowgoose »

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.

In a hopeless situation, I would not prolong my life. But that would be my choice for myself. I don't get to make that choice for others. Why should you?

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#43

Post by JKCalhoun »

DrNosferatu wrote: post #4

I see this as the central plot device of a great new TV streaming series! With all the quirkiness of the 70s and giving Westworld a run for its money ;)

Woody Allen already wrote the pilot with "Sleeper" (1973).

https://youtu.be/D2fYguIX17Q

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#44

Post by rscho »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #35
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 concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. Seems like a false dichotomy. Aside from life support in one's final days, most practical medical interventions for prolonging life also result in significant improvements in quality of life. For example, healthy diet and exercise contribute to extended lifespan, but they also improve quality of life significantl…

> Aside from life support in one's final days, most practical medical interventions for prolonging life also result in significant improvements in quality of life.

I can assure you that you'd never ever hold that opinion if you were a healthcare worker. A big part of our job is to maintain alive people with a horrible quality of life who should be long dead, oftentimes without even being able to know if they'd in fact prefer dying...

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#45

Post by nomdep »

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.

A very predictable line of thought to have in your twenties

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#47

Post by willnonya »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #35
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 concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. Seems like a false dichotomy. Aside from life support in one's final days, most practical medical interventions for prolonging life also result in significant improvements in quality of life. For example, healthy diet and exercise contribute to extended lifespan, but they also improve quality of life significantl…

There is a lot of subjectivity in your conclusion.

Healthy diet for example is not a singularly defined term and depending on specifics can be argued to lower quality of life even if they improve health.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#49

Post by sigzero »

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.

> just the recycling of life so that new life can happen

You have no idea if that is true or not though.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#50

Post by ggreer »

fotrury wrote: post #20
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're going to die eventually whether you like it or not. Better to get comfortable with this fact, rather than fight it.

Doesn't that argument prove too much? In the past, people's lives were shorter and more full of misery. Every improvement we've gotten has been due to people rejecting your philosophy. Assuming one can live longer (without being frail and demented) why not?

It seems like if most people could choose, they'd prefer to have the mental and physical abilities of a 20-something while living as long as they wanted. Eventually, medical technology will get to the point where that is possible. Why not hasten such a day rather than let more people get old and frail? Yes, people will still eventually die, but living for 300 years in peak condition seems better than the status quo.

Post reply on HN