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

91–100 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#91

Post by swader999 »

thefounder wrote: post #56
swayvil wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someday they'll demonstrate existence of an afterlife to the satisfaction of the average consumer and the whole world is gonna do a Homer Simpson. I mean, it'll flip our whole value system.

So the religious fanatics were right all along? I think the afterlife is actually the life after you realise there is no afterlife. Many never reach it.

It's pretty hard to dispute the thousands of NDE reports. Similar experiences, descriptions across different cultures and religions. Young children, even the blind since birth all fairly consistently report the same.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#92

Post by pessimizer »

kragen wrote: post #62

unfortunate that the author didn't bother to distinguish between the effects of state-of-the-art cryopreservation by vitrification and the older cryopreservation procedures that produced the massive fracture damages they mention an awful lot of the article seems to be about how weird it is for people to study things carefully and try to do things that are not known to be possible, with the implicit subtext that being…

> unfortunate that the author didn't bother to distinguish between the effects of state-of-the-art cryopreservation by vitrification and the older cryopreservation procedures that produced the massive fracture damages they mention

Your comment also does not do this. What are these techniques that have results that are not like the ones described in the article?

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#93

Post by cldellow »

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #82
afpx wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you over 50? A year over 50 feels as satisfying as one month being 18. I’d rather enjoy what I have left.

Can you paraphrase this? Having trouble understanding what you mean and I want to know.

I'm not afpx, but I understood them to be saying "you have fewer good days when you're 50 than when you're 18." That is, health wise, it's better to be 18 than to be 50. :)

A related concept is the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which is used when weighing the cost/benefits of certain interventions.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#94

Post by tptacek »

kragen wrote: post #62

unfortunate that the author didn't bother to distinguish between the effects of state-of-the-art cryopreservation by vitrification and the older cryopreservation procedures that produced the massive fracture damages they mention an awful lot of the article seems to be about how weird it is for people to study things carefully and try to do things that are not known to be possible, with the implicit subtext that being…

Didn't go so well for Kim Suozzi.

https://www.alcor.org/docs/alcor-case-report-a-2643.pdf

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#96

Post by Sebb767 »

banga wrote: post #70

I find the whole concept hilarious. There's an implicit assumption that someone in the future will be bothered to resurrect a frozen body, then resurrect them from death (since they already died before being popsicle-ified). And even if they could be bothered, the thawed would be a lab experiment, owned by whatever corporation pulled off the magic. And if magically they came out of the ordeal functional and free, the…

People spend millions on the lottery. Old rich people spending their money on a revival ticket with similar chances doesn't seem that bad to me.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#97

Post by _c3ag »

ashwagary wrote: post #86
_c3ag wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so do you really prefer society putting effort in very complex labour that is unknown than making people aware of how important is a good diet and exercising often? as the website article typed, there is a long way to tickle trustable keys to preservation, let alone reviving a frozen body, let alone understanding what we have to do to live in peak capacity for 50 years, let alone to live 300… i sincerely prefer publi…

We have 8 billion people, no need for either ors.

i mean, is better to have a solid foundation to discover and create things… some people still do not have access to proper nutrition

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#98

Post by jacquesm »

harry8 wrote: post #74
pnpnp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can actually get really hot in space without some kind of active heat transfer. The body in the suit would probably alternate between freezing and frying. Not a great way to preserve a body IMO.

Trying to use facts, logic, and this "science" stuff against me is futile as I have a perfectly good conspiracy theory! The silver suit couldn't insulate and keep the heat out?

> The silver suit couldn't insulate and keep the heat out?

If you so wish to believe...

The problem is that there is no air to carry away the heat so that whole setup becomes like a miniature greenhouse. Without some active way to cool it eventually you'd cook.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#99

Post by lmm »

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.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#100

Post by pmichaud »

banga wrote: post #70

I find the whole concept hilarious. There's an implicit assumption that someone in the future will be bothered to resurrect a frozen body, then resurrect them from death (since they already died before being popsicle-ified). And even if they could be bothered, the thawed would be a lab experiment, owned by whatever corporation pulled off the magic. And if magically they came out of the ordeal functional and free, the…

I’m not signed up, but I know many people who are, and none of them assume any of these things. No one “expects” it to work, it’s just that they figure a long shot is better than no shot. The people I’ve talked to about it put their chances of successful revival at significantly less than 1%, and they think that’s worth it.
Post reply on HN