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

151–160 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#151

Post by thatguy0900 »

cortesoft wrote: post #146
stephc_int13 wrote: post #87

Cryonic preservation might or might not be possible, this is clearly a difficult process but we're never going to find out without trying. Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage.

> Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage. Umm, people still alive have use for money. The money could go towards helping the lives of the living, so it absolutely is a waste.

Well, if we accept the reality that the wealthy people doing this weren't going to have that money taxed away, I'd rather it go into a scientific pursuit that might have some payoff than just go into some generationally wealthy kids trust fund

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#152

Post by telchior »

tptacek wrote: post #114
kelnos wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and experimental things fail all the time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. Learning from failures is how progress is made. I'm skeptical of this cryonics stuff, but I can see the appeal: even if the chance of being eventually revived is a tiny fraction of 1%, if money isn't an issue, why not? If humanity doesn't destroy itself over the next century or two, it might be fun to see what the future is like.

Ok, but this is what people pursuing perpetual motion say, too. Meanwhile, the fundamentals of what's being attempted here are pretty implausible. Not all scientific advancements pattern match to the conventional journal article track on which most science is done today, but the oddball projects are signaling something. I don't like getting super deep into these threads, because my normal tendency will be to nerd out…

I agree that what's being attempted is pretty implausible, but you're comparing it to people pursuing perpetual motion, which is in direct contravention of physical laws.

A better comparison might be people pursuing fusion for power generation -- something known to be possible, albeit potentially beyond human capabilities either now or in the future.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#153

Post by twelve40 »

tptacek wrote: post #114
kelnos wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and experimental things fail all the time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. Learning from failures is how progress is made. I'm skeptical of this cryonics stuff, but I can see the appeal: even if the chance of being eventually revived is a tiny fraction of 1%, if money isn't an issue, why not? If humanity doesn't destroy itself over the next century or two, it might be fun to see what the future is like.

Ok, but this is what people pursuing perpetual motion say, too. Meanwhile, the fundamentals of what's being attempted here are pretty implausible. Not all scientific advancements pattern match to the conventional journal article track on which most science is done today, but the oddball projects are signaling something. I don't like getting super deep into these threads, because my normal tendency will be to nerd out…

> these situations are always incredibly sad

maybe even these horribly failing cases would actually make these people happy and not sad that they at least tried, instead of turning straight into nothing?

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#154

Post by tptacek »

telchior wrote: post #152
tptacek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but this is what people pursuing perpetual motion say, too. Meanwhile, the fundamentals of what's being attempted here are pretty implausible. Not all scientific advancements pattern match to the conventional journal article track on which most science is done today, but the oddball projects are signaling something. I don't like getting super deep into these threads, because my normal tendency will be to nerd out…

I agree that what's being attempted is pretty implausible, but you're comparing it to people pursuing perpetual motion, which is in direct contravention of physical laws. A better comparison might be people pursuing fusion for power generation -- something known to be possible, albeit potentially beyond human capabilities either now or in the future.

Yes, all I'd be saying with that comparison is that the logic used above proves too much. Of course, people also say the same sorts of things about advances that pan out.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#155

Post by bombcar »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #142
dumpsterdiver wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 opp…

> The people storing popsicles don't necessarily need to have anything to do with the people who dream of someday unthawing them. Generally speaking the thing they have in common is the funding required to do the cryonic enterprise. > 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…

Let’s skip the freezer and just launch the popsicles into deep space orbit behind mars or something.

Once we can successfully Futurama the bodies we will easily be able to retrieve the frozen capsules.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#156

Post by latency-guy2 »

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.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. I'm immortal and I will make it so

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#157

Post by qbrass »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #124
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…

> 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.

Robots will do it as a hobby. It will show to an enslaved humanity, that even death won't be an escape.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#158

Post by veilrap »

cortesoft wrote: post #146
stephc_int13 wrote: post #87

Cryonic preservation might or might not be possible, this is clearly a difficult process but we're never going to find out without trying. Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage.

> Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage. Umm, people still alive have use for money. The money could go towards helping the lives of the living, so it absolutely is a waste.

The people running the Cryo business are living people who get paid for the task. No more wasteful than any other relatively benign thing someone is going to spend their money on.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#159

Post by veilrap »

pmichaud wrote: post #100
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.

Yep, that's exactly the stance I've heard from people who are interested in this sort of thing.

And to be honest, <1% odds seem a lot better than 0% odds for normal death. (Sans religious aftermaths)

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#160

Post by barry-cotter »

cortesoft wrote: post #146
stephc_int13 wrote: post #87

Cryonic preservation might or might not be possible, this is clearly a difficult process but we're never going to find out without trying. Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage.

> Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage. Umm, people still alive have use for money. The money could go towards helping the lives of the living, so it absolutely is a waste.

Yeah, we should expropriate the assets of [Nonprofit that does thing I don’t like] to spend it on [thing I like].

Almost everything people in rich countries do is a ridiculous luxury compared to the fact that it costs about $1,000 to save someone from dying of malaria. Most of everything humans do is clearly a waste. We can’t even get it together to prepare for the next pandemic, never mind existential risk. This is besides the fact that nothing matters. There’s no God to ascribe meaning to things. Things only matter if they matter to you.

Post reply on HN