Live data from Hacker News

What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

bigthink.com

101–110 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#101
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…

Reminds me of an old movie called "The Asphyx"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asphyx

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#102
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…

Humanity has tended to become more compassionate over time. It would have been unthinkable centuries ago that people donate money, time and effort to help those in distant lands; now it's commonplace. A frozen body from the past would be primitive and foreign to people in the future, but there are all manner of charities devoted to helping those (including helping with "id, taxes, all the fun stuff") who are primitive and foreign to us today.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#103
post #94
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

> After removing the carotid cannulae, Kim’s cephalon was removed from the enclosure and transferred to a modified LR40 dewar

It has been said that death has the most euphemisms of any subject. Cephalon? As in cephalic, Greek for head. Passive voice, too. I suppose one would want to create some distance. "We removed the tubes from the arteries and put the head in a thermos."

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#104

How could this be published without mentioning the Bide-a-Wee Scandal touched on in Larry Niven fiction?

I was going to say that Larry Niven wrote a novel (A World out of Time?) in which the cryogenically frozen were resurrected to perform menial or otherwise undesirable jobs, as a form of indentured servitude. IIRC, trust funds set up by the deceased to pay for their preservation and resurrection had been dissolved on the grounds that they were strangling the economy.

If Bide-a-Wee was not from this novel, a reference would be much appreciated, as my cursory search has not found it.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#105
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…

Implicit in your assumption is that nobody in the future will ever have the means and eccentric interest to want to revive these people.

If we could revive an iceman today, we absolutely would have, if not for science than for profit.

On that note, I'm disappointed by how often the future is assumed to have progressed no farther than today's form of capitalism.

That and TFA both speak to the same problem: the unimaginative belief that now is what was, is, and ever shall be.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#106
post #103
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't go so well for Kim Suozzi. https://www.alcor.org/docs/alcor-case-report-a-2643.pdf

> After removing the carotid cannulae, Kim’s cephalon was removed from the enclosure and transferred to a modified LR40 dewar It has been said that death has the most euphemisms of any subject. Cephalon? As in cephalic, Greek for head. Passive voice, too. I suppose one would want to create some distance. "We removed the tubes from the arteries and put the head in a thermos."

If they laid bare what they were doing, in plain language, even fewer people would take them seriously.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#107
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

On the other hand, there are 150-year-old tortoises and 200-year-old whales out there. So it's not like there is some finite impossibility to living a long time, other animals have figured it out.

And possibly 500 year old sharks. (Not yet confirmed)

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#108
post #102
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…

Humanity has tended to become more compassionate over time. It would have been unthinkable centuries ago that people donate money, time and effort to help those in distant lands; now it's commonplace. A frozen body from the past would be primitive and foreign to people in the future, but there are all manner of charities devoted to helping those (including helping with "id, taxes, all the fun stuff") who are primitiv…

I bet Barnum and Bailey will make a come back in the future using the cryocrones as a way to get around all the animal rights objections, parading them around like Ludger Sylbaris [1] in the guise of fundraising for these cryorestoration charities. For a little extra, you can feed them using their favorite food, high fructose Jurassic syrup. Sounds very enlightened dystopia.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludger_Sylbaris

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

We all die eventually, so far...

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#110
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?

Er, the parent literally did that, in the bit you quoted. All the results of thawing mentioned in the article are from the older freezing procedures. Current methods (as mentioned in the article) use a form of vitrification. My understanding is that no one has been (intentionally, carefully) thawed after being vitrified using "modern" techniques, so we really don't know what condition a body would be in after unthawing using current technology.

Now, "not knowing" doesn't prove anything, of course, and I think it was correct for the article to describe the evidence we do have, even if it's necessarily out of date. But it would have been nice for them to acknowledge that the unthawing data we have is not representative of what would happen if a "current-gen" cryonics "patient" were to be thawed today.

Post reply on HN