Live data from Hacker News

What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

bigthink.com

121–130 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#121
post #49
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.

I think they just mean reproduction?

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#123
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…

Don't let the idiots get you down - the world is, and has been, becoming friendlier to little niches of people over time. The smart weirdos have been kicking butt for a long time now (at least the ones that can get to a friendly enclave) and this is set to grow exponentially. And if you're still pessimistic, consider this. A person I otherwise rabidly disagree with once said "political power grows out of the barrel o…

there is relatively little correlation between conformism and intelligence

a world dominated by military power is not a nerd paradise

consider the plight of the iranian nuclear scientists

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#124
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…

> There's an implicit assumption that someone in the future will be bothered to resurrect a frozen body

I imagine that mad scientists, in general, suffer from a lack of test subjects. I'm pretty sure the future will find something to do with frozen humans who signed up to be resurrected.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#125
post #118
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

Quoted post unavailable.

Feel free to email me, but I have really no idea who you are, and no idea what this has to do with the thread. Feel better, regardless.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#126
post #67

So here is one of my current fav. conspiracy theories AND it involves Elon. Remember the first payload of his "Falcon Heavy" rocket - some tesla or other? Had a tailor's dummy in a space suit strapped in the front seat. That was a real person in the suit who had paid for the most effective, reliable and longest lasting cryogenic freeze available. No maintenance power required. Will continue to be frozen even if the e…

The recent conspiracy I read is that Elon might be making clones of himself. The last post Ye (Kanye) mades was a symbol that had a star of David with a swastika in it. And Elon personally kicked him off twitter immediately. But that's actually a symbol for this cultish religious group. "Raëlism teaches that an extraterrestrial species known as the Elohim created humanity using their advanced technology. It claims th…

No post body was provided.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#127
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unthawi…

> 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.

why haven't they tested this on animals or non-paying cadavers? It would seem unwise to pay to keep vitrified bodies frozen if one had no understanding of how the bodies would be when they were unfrozen.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#128
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unthawi…

[deleted]

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#129
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The fact that you find the way a "primitive and foreign" person was treated a mere century ago so horrific from the perspective of today rather proves my point.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#130
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Feel free to email me, but I have really no idea who you are, and no idea what this has to do with the thread. Feel better, regardless.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN