Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Quoted post unavailable.
[deleted]
What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
131–140 of 599 posts
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#132As 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.
Yeah. I just read the entire Wait But Why article linked elsewhere in the thread, and it seems to be taken as a given that technology will continue to increase at an exponential rate, and so the ability to precisely detect and arbitrarily manipulate the positions of individual atoms has got to be in our not-impossibly-distant future.
But I think we are having trouble really grasping the magnitude of that challenge compared to the progress made by science and rationalism so far. Today's medical interventions are breathtaking in effect compared to the state of the art of a hundred years ago, but the complexity of those interventions themselves does not even approach the complexity of the biological systems which are being restored. They are really very crude solutions. Even cutting-edge stuff like mRNA vaccines involves hijacking existing machinery rather than creating new machinery from whole cloth.
Anyhow, it's possible that humanity will go a long way, and that extinction is not in our future, but that nevertheless some problems will simply forever be beyond our intellectual capacity. It's not hard to imagine that all the requisite knowledge to accomplish this kind of techno-necromancy might not even be attainable in a single lifespan -- even a lifespan augmented by future technology.
Maybe AI solves that problem, but it would also be real weird to wake up in the future to discover that a race of incomprehensibly brilliant machines has resurrected you as a pet out of sheer boredom.
Ultimately, it appears that the odds of "successful cryonic preservation" due to any foreseeable reason are 0%. So a decision to do it would come down to betting against my own ability to predict the future. Fair enough: I've been wrong before, but I'm probably not wrong this time.
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#133I 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…
Ha, interesting, a while ago I was thinking about a solution to this very problem. Everyone seems to focusing on the freezing part, but not what happens with the timeframe until you are unfrozen and beyond. Because in addition to nobody wanting to unfreeze you, you also would have no money and would basically be “poor” 500 years from now. On top of that there needs to be a long term storage facility which is somehow paid & maintained to “store” a frozen person over hundred of years until technology is available to unfreeze and revive a person.
As a solution I think there should be a special “bank” like organization which sole purpose it is to survive for hundred of years. It also would need to grow the money to keep up with inflation. In addition this organization needs to be country independent since you can’t guarantee countries to survive that long. This organization would also use some of the investment proceeds to pay for the storage and even transfer frozen people to a different location in case of war or natural disasters.
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The state of the art in this field is removing a rabbit's kidney, vitrifying it, waiting a month or so, thawing it and implanting it. I haven't read this article but the abstract seems to confirm what I read a while ago.[0]
Apparently the bottleneck is in thawing organs past a certain size, current thawing methods lead to uneven thawing in larger organs, however I read they were experimenting with using directed radio waves?
Of course once you thaw a person successfully you still need to cure them of what killed them and revive them and that part is highly variable and if they died of aging is still well beyond our reach.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318757723_Thermal_A...
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Oh so when you’re 18 you extract as much pleasure/utility/etc from a month of life as you do from a year at 50? Maybe my late teens were lame because those times were not that awesome lol. Nor any other time I can think of. It’s all mostly been the same, except, say, when I was 4-8, when time just dragged on and on so slowly everything felt like eternity all the time. Then that ended and everything has been more or less the same from a psycho-emotional perspective.
Health-wise yeah it’s great to be young :)
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Because their clients are extremely rich people and if they’re not confident the experiments will work they won’t get money from those said rich people.
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I’m just a cynic with the comedic sense of a Vogon and that was more an attempt at humor than a serious argument :-)
Though I will add that morals and their reach often wax and wane. Chattel slavery is less acceptable today than it has ever been globally but there are more chattel slaves than ever just due to insane population growth
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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.
The people storing popsicles don't necessarily need to have anything to do with the people who dream of someday unthawing them. If some rich person wants to pay to keep an expensive freezer running for a specified amount of time after they die, that creates a sound business opportunity for someone who is willing and capable of running a freezer.
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#139unfortunate 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?
The Alcor site presents evidence of a rabbit kidney that is vitrified, stored in a dewar for a month, then revived and put back into the donor rabbit.
Or at least they did the last time I looked.
Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
#140unfortunate 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
09:51 Cephalon fell out of holding ring
hmm. So was this like a minor repositioning or was there a head rolling onto the floor?