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

251–260 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#251

Post by scarygliders »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #247
scarygliders wrote: post #237

If one of the reasons for wishing to be frozen, is to see what the future looks like, then there is an alternative; Einstein to the rescue! Just strap yourself into a spaceship capable of reaching within a few % of the speed of light, and fly around for a bit. No need to wait till you're at death's door and turned into a corpsicle. Just head on out there for a few years at relativistic speed. By the time you slow dow…

The flaw in your theory being that it would take you equally as long to slow down as it would to reach that speed. So you would age out on the deceleration. I suppose you could accelerate in an orbit around earth to maintain contact. But my understanding of relativity is poor

Depends on how good your spacecraft is at speeding up and slowing down, really. There are many designs which could probably do this relatively (heh) quickly.

I'm sure producing one of these things is more possible right now than freezing/thawing/reviving a human.

Alternatively, to compensate for how long it would take to speed up and slow down, just have our intrepid time-o-naut climb into their suspended animatio--- oh heck ;)

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#252

Post by BreakfastB0b »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #247
scarygliders wrote: post #237

If one of the reasons for wishing to be frozen, is to see what the future looks like, then there is an alternative; Einstein to the rescue! Just strap yourself into a spaceship capable of reaching within a few % of the speed of light, and fly around for a bit. No need to wait till you're at death's door and turned into a corpsicle. Just head on out there for a few years at relativistic speed. By the time you slow dow…

The flaw in your theory being that it would take you equally as long to slow down as it would to reach that speed. So you would age out on the deceleration. I suppose you could accelerate in an orbit around earth to maintain contact. But my understanding of relativity is poor

You would age the same amount during deceleration that you did during acceleration.

I think your misunderstanding comes from the relativistic twin paradox.

From the perspective of the twin on the spaceship accelerating away from earth, the twin on earth seems to age slowly as well until the space ship twin decelerates and then turns around, during which they perceive the twin on earth to age rapidly.

The acceleration / deceleration of the space ship twin’s frame of reference is what breaks the symmetry of the no-preferred frame of reference during flight.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#253

Post by snordgren »

kragen wrote: post #123
FredPret wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Despite the tragedy in Ukraine, most people in most countries are living through an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

Since 1950, the global population has more than tripled, while militaries have shrunk. Since 1960, military spending as a share of global GDP has gone down from over 6% to less than 3%.

The world isn't perfect, but it has become a lot less warlike and more hospitable for nerds in recent decades.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#254

Post by yreg »

scarygliders wrote: post #237

If one of the reasons for wishing to be frozen, is to see what the future looks like, then there is an alternative; Einstein to the rescue! Just strap yourself into a spaceship capable of reaching within a few % of the speed of light, and fly around for a bit. No need to wait till you're at death's door and turned into a corpsicle. Just head on out there for a few years at relativistic speed. By the time you slow dow…

Well, freezers are more available than spaceships.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#255

Post by stanete »

hoseja wrote: post #241
epicureanideal wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm absolutely shocked that more money and time is not spent researching how to cure death by aging. (Note that for those who discuss this semi-regularly, that's understood to be very different than seeking a cure for any particular age related disease, which usually we attempt to address when it's too late.). There are groups like https://www.levf.org/ doing some early work like Robust Mouse Rejuvenation (in mid-lif…

Imagine if they succeeded. Instant breakdown of society. So by induction, perhaps someone makes sure they don't.

It doesn't seem to be happening that way. Current research doesn't seem to aim at indefinite life extension but at some decades more of healthy life. The current goal of most companies and foundations is to make 90 the new 50. So it seems that it will happen gradually.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#256

Post by Gordonjcp »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #127
kelnos wrote: post #110

Earlier 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…

You ever hear of the term "technical debt"?

How many times have you said "sod it, that sounds like a problem that Tomorrow chordalkeyboard can deal with, I'm going home"?

In this case, it's "sod it, future human-popsicleologists can solve that one, at least I got them frozen"

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#257

Post by [deleted] »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #247
scarygliders wrote: post #237

If one of the reasons for wishing to be frozen, is to see what the future looks like, then there is an alternative; Einstein to the rescue! Just strap yourself into a spaceship capable of reaching within a few % of the speed of light, and fly around for a bit. No need to wait till you're at death's door and turned into a corpsicle. Just head on out there for a few years at relativistic speed. By the time you slow dow…

The flaw in your theory being that it would take you equally as long to slow down as it would to reach that speed. So you would age out on the deceleration. I suppose you could accelerate in an orbit around earth to maintain contact. But my understanding of relativity is poor

[deleted]

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#258

Post by stanete »

JakeAl wrote: post #240
chrisfosterelli wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it's insightful, I've correspondingly never understood the common contentment with death. The world is an incredible place, and there's so much to experience and do. If I had the time there's hundreds of careers I could spend a lifetime in each trying to develop mastery. I think I could live a thousand lives with the people I care about and not be done. I've had to choose one life, and it's a nice one, but if…

The notion that immortality is a good idea fades with age. Youth is more important, because as you age opportunities and options vanish and ailments and limitations arise. If you can give me immortality, health and my youth, I may reconsider.

That's why what most research is trying to extend healthspan and lifespan. All drugs that are in clinical studies today are either trying to push the old part to later in life or just targeting what is making us old so we don't well, get old. The goal is to maintain that youth.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#259

Post by wiz21c »

pavlov wrote: post #250
UberFly wrote: post #234

I wanted to know the state of Ted William's head, so I did a search. This is what I found: In "Frozen," Larry Johnson, a former executive at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Scottsdale, Ariz., writes that Williams' head was abused at the facility. Johnson claims a technician took baseball-like swings at Williams' frozen head with a monkey wrench. What?

As the pharaohs already discovered, an immortality plan that depends on generations of low-paid underlings to maintain the dead elite's physical bodies is fundamentally flawed.

Fortunately, this statement is true for many plans of the elite :-)

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#260

Post by yreg »

sangnoir wrote: post #232
epicureanideal wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm absolutely shocked that more money and time is not spent researching how to cure death by aging. (Note that for those who discuss this semi-regularly, that's understood to be very different than seeking a cure for any particular age related disease, which usually we attempt to address when it's too late.). There are groups like https://www.levf.org/ doing some early work like Robust Mouse Rejuvenation (in mid-lif…

> I'm absolutely shocked that more money and time is not spent researching how to cure death by aging. Faced with their own mortality, a bunch of aging billionaires and multimillionaires tend to pour money into longevity research. I'd be very upset if governments increased spending on fighting senescence today, instead of lower-hanging fruit .

When Elon was asked why longetivity research didn't pick his interest as worthy of an investment, he said:

>It is important for us to die because most of the time people don't change their mind, they just die. If you live forever, we might become a very ossified society where new ideas cannot succeed.

Post reply on HN