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

361–370 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#361

Post by m4rtink »

pkrotich wrote: post #238
elliotec wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we don’t die we don’t evolve. Not as a species though. We just have to keep reproducing more of us that are good at staying alive and also reproducing to evolve. You and I theoretically could live forever in the same state, and still, our species would evolve via our offspring and theirs and so on.

I think the OP has a point - look at the cycle of innovation e.g in physics - happens almost every 100! I think it’s not an accident - as older generation die out the new ones can easily question the wisdom of the death vs living giants!

Or you could maybe go much faster as you don't have to tech new generations of physicists all iver again & you won't loose all the Nobel Price level geniuses after a few decades.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#362

Post by m4rtink »

p1esk wrote: post #301
tgv wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infant mortality is quite different: we know that infants are supposed to live. Extending life is the opposite: death is the normal, even unavoidable end. The comparison is misplaced. > I could spend a lifetime in each trying to develop mastery No, you couldn't. You would still be your aged brain, not capable of learning hundreds of professions, and your frail body, not capable of replacing its cells any longer. It r…

I’m amazed that people who argue against immortality often assume it will come with a frail body and an aged brain. Why? To me, the most basic form of immortality is achieved by reversal of aging, including a brain. Your body is just a machine, it’s pretty obvious it can be repaired, even if we don’t know how yet.

Or even it could literally become a machine, potentially with some downsides initially- eq the new parts don't self-regnerate but can be trivially swapped out or repaired.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#363

Post by scotty79 »

yreg wrote: post #354
epicureanideal wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite could also be true though. Longer lifespans permit more people gaining education, working more years, saving more money with a longer term vision, and rising to be a new economic upper class. Short lifespans make that a very difficult to coordinate multi generational project. There are also solutions like term limits, or generational tenure limits or something that could help reduce any negative effects…

I'm all for longetivity, but I admit what he said has substance. It's not (only) about old people having short term vision/not enough time for reeducation. 25 or 30 year old people are already very often set in stone and unable to change their views and they have most of their life ahead of them.

Why not die at 30 then in the spirit of societal progress?

This argument is philosophical i.e. worthless. We will actually have to win with death to answer the question if it's good or not. It's not something you can figure out without doing it.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#364

Post by d_tr »

wintorez wrote: post #168

Never understood the quest for immortality. We are the children of our time. When our time passes, we will live as strangers in a strange land, drowning in the sea of nostalgia. Death will simply takes us back to where we came from before our birth. Don’t fear the reaper.

Immortality is a strong word. I am personally in favour of a situation where death would feel more like a choice and not like something which can come at any time or after a (not very) long road of mental and physical decline and loss.

The amount of all forms of suffering and sadness this would lift seems hard to describe in a few paragraphs.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#365

Post by xlii »

Rubinsalamander wrote: post #337
xlii wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to “high end” care (which I suppose would be one) is already high cost which is not that accessible even with technology presence. As of 2019 1/3 of world’s population doesn’t have access to clean drinking water. Would they be glad that instead of clean water and sanitary conditions they were granted endless life? It’s nice to focus on optimistic outcomes but except for genius scientists world is full of mobst…

Dictator could pay more for it but would probably be to paranoid to actually do it until its proven technologically. So my bet would be on the Noble Prize winner because of curiosity and good connections to the people working on the technology. If the technology first emerges you could probably get it quite cheaply because its not proven yet. Afterwards there will be a scarity due to everyone wanting it which will dr…

Based on previous events Covid provided wealth of data, and it was high profile people who got access to vaccinations and experimental treatment first, in many countries celebrities got their shots before healthcare workers.

Immortality also doesn’t equal invincibility. One can get sick, one can brake their bones and still suffer. With assumption that immortality would come with great regenerative capabilities - would that include teeth as well? What would happen if we’d lost some due to accident? Would it extend to limbs?

I think main question is why one would like to be immortal? Experiencing thing is nice thing, but with great biological change world would change too. Population would grow and scarcity would be even worse. Probably people would work most of the time just to be able to sleep (due housing shortage) and eat (due food shortage as a result of decreased production area).

It’s possible that bigger chunks of our lives (except “the winners”) would consist of work (another prior example - while we work less for last couple centuries, work devices are omnipresent falsifying data, and we still work much more than in pre-industrial times [1])

If you hadn’t had chance I’d recommend Upload show available on Amazon Prime. It’s somewhat tangential (as it’s endless virtual afterlife) but it touches some possible issues relatable to our discussion

[1]: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#366

Post by scotty79 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #305
saiya-jin wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actively pay to fight such a movement. The world is full, yes it can be fuller but we are seriously cracking whole ecosystem and one of main reason is simply the amount of people living on this planet. If you prolong life say 2x it means Earth has 2x the population long term just due to this. Lets focus on serious issues hindering our growth as a race and not some vanity fears of few rich and powerful who thi…

You cite "Stalin bad" but Stalin only killed about 40,000/week for 30 years. You're talking of personally paying to support the deaths of everyone at the current world-wide all-cause death rate of 1,000,000/week, forever . Surely in some way that makes your plans infinitely worse than Stalin's? Imagine all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, all the veil of mourning and tears, the darkness your plans will cloud the su…

> You cite "Stalin bad" but Stalin only killed about 40,000/week for 30 years.

Also, since death is apparently good then Stalin was not bad? Right?

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#367

Post by bowsamic »

Retric wrote: post #355
stareatgoats wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it is literally what is says under the heading "Common elements": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Common_e...

The very first paragraph says: A near-death experience (NDE) is a profound personal experience associated with death or impending death which researchers claim share similar characteristics. When positive, such experiences may encompass a variety of sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a lig…

In Buddhism, those people with the negative experiences are the ones who are going to experience a rebirth in a hell realm, unfortunately for an extremely long number of years (between 10^6 and 10^21 years)

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#368

Post by jodrellblank »

p1esk wrote: post #301
tgv wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infant mortality is quite different: we know that infants are supposed to live. Extending life is the opposite: death is the normal, even unavoidable end. The comparison is misplaced. > I could spend a lifetime in each trying to develop mastery No, you couldn't. You would still be your aged brain, not capable of learning hundreds of professions, and your frail body, not capable of replacing its cells any longer. It r…

I’m amazed that people who argue against immortality often assume it will come with a frail body and an aged brain. Why? To me, the most basic form of immortality is achieved by reversal of aging, including a brain. Your body is just a machine, it’s pretty obvious it can be repaired, even if we don’t know how yet.

> "it’s pretty obvious it can be repaired, even if we don’t know how yet."

Is it obvious? How would you repair a piece of metal suffering metal fatigue? A perished elastic band? A screw with a chewed head? These are trivial things compared to a human body and we haven't a clue how to rejuvenate them, all we can do is replace them. But how do you replace "a muscle" without surgically damaging the tissue around it? How do you keep "muscle memory" after doing so? How do you reconnect your replacement eye to the optic nerve? How do you replace cells like for like when there's tens of trillions of them in each person, and each cell is a machine a hundred trillion atoms complex? How do you target the cellular machinary inside one cell and find out that it's in need of repair? Is it 'pretty obvious' you can do so?

What does it mean to reverse aging? Younger me was smaller. Younger me moved differently. Younger me liked different foods and knew different facts. Younger me didn't have scar tissue in certain places, are you going to swap that out for normal tissue (how)?

It's pretty obvious that 'repair' does not undo the effects of ageing, it prolongs them - restored old cars are not new cars, they still need to be driven gently. People with plastic surgery don't look like young people, they look like old people who fell into uncanny valley.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#369

Post by Cthulhu_ »

epicureanideal wrote: post #195
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…

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…

One shouldn't put money into "curing death by aging" without fixing society first; while birth rates exceed death rates, the world fills up and drains natural resources etc etc. There's a ton of problems that need resolving if living longer is to be a thing.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#370

Post by jodrellblank »

concordDance wrote: post #340
tgv wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if we don’t know how yet How would you fix your brain? Its capacity is obviously limited, and tinkering with plasticity almost certainly will have unexpected and undesirable consequences. You simply won't be the same person.

I'm not the same person I was a couple of decades ago and will be a different person in a couple of decades. I'm happy with this.

Then why not be happy dying and letting a different person exist in a different body?
Post reply on HN