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

401–410 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#401

Post by arkh »

lovich wrote: post #392
recuter wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too upon hearing of a lunatic beating a frozen disembodied head to gallagheresque pulp with a blunt instrument can't help but smile sardonically if the resulting goop was formerly wealthier than me. Cool and normal. Power to the people bro. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Might have done the world a service. Immortality combined with winner takes all capitalism will just lead to an entrenched race of god emperors that won’t be removed ever except by society wide violence, basically like medieval kingdoms or dynastic empires. Market economies have helped limit that a bit(wealth inheritances still have a problem), but one of the unstated backstops of that system is that eventually the r…

> Immortality

If your body is not damaged enough. It would mean a lot of people would become really risk averse. If generalized it would fossilize a society really fast.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#402

Post by ShredKazoo »

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.

As long as we're going down that route, end-of-life medical care is also quite costly.

I wonder: With economies of scale, could cryonics actually become cheaper than end-of-life medical care? Currently the ballpark cost of cryonics is similar to health insurance: https://www.alcor.org/membership/

It wouldn't shock me if cryopreserving terminally ill people would save money overall, given economies of scale. I would certainly prefer cryopreservation over terminal illness! https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay...

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#403

Post by endtime »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #369
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…

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.

If aging is cured then the elderly could be fully productive.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#404

Post by ramraj07 »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #319
ramraj07 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one would like a bit more time. 200? Maybe 500? No one likely wants to be immortal but 80 or so seems criminally short for what our abilities are and how long it takes for us to find our calling.

Somewhere between 10,000 years and 100,000 years seems like the right amount to live as a human being and die with absolutely no regrets. Dying as a 257 years old you can still imagine feeling some resentment for the future beyond you: what will they discover, how will the music sound. But dying as a 84,751 years old, after an incomprehensible amount of sensory data, inner and outer experiences, concepts, technologie…

I’m just being reasonable here. It’s _possible_ I might find life that’s thousands of years long interesting, but it’s beyond my current imagination. I’ll be perfectly happy with doubling my lifetime (tripling my productive life?). as a biologist, that sounds more reasonable anyway.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#405

Post by ramraj07 »

unixbotnuke wrote: post #215
ramraj07 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I’d like to live forever, I couldn’t in good conscience monetarily support research that’s explicitly focused on extending the life span of the privileged (including me) when more resources are needed in finding how to lift up everyone else left behind today.

Would it not be reasonable to assume that the first anti-aging therapies that are approved will go to the privleged? Then they would be commodified and provided to the less economically fortunate.

The first monoclonal antibody therapy hit markets decades ago. It still hasn’t percolated to even the middle class in countries like india.

If a drug or therapy truly does extend life span I can also see systems forming where the few want to keep it to themselves and away from the many. One way or another I can’t imagine this being the the top priority of anyone but the most vain (personal opinion) so I would not associate myself with such research is all.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#406

Post by ramraj07 »

concordDance wrote: post #344
ramraj07 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I’d like to live forever, I couldn’t in good conscience monetarily support research that’s explicitly focused on extending the life span of the privileged (including me) when more resources are needed in finding how to lift up everyone else left behind today.

Do you give half your income to the top Give Well charities too? Honestly this seems like a better use of resources than a holiday or a new TV.

I actually have not spent more than 25% of my income, yes, and have actually started researching starting my own institution. Where I hope to put the majority of my income and money made. I feel like NGOs have a cancer where CEOs are paid millions to increase fund raising with the actual “doing good” part being at best an after thought. Give well is awesome but I didn’t find a single charity I could believe in (I’d rather help orphans, victims of domestic abuse and if possible, help victims of human trafficking. Tall order but also paradoxically not in GiveWells docket apparently).

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#407

Post by ramraj07 »

adastra22 wrote: post #280
ramraj07 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I’d like to live forever, I couldn’t in good conscience monetarily support research that’s explicitly focused on extending the life span of the privileged (including me) when more resources are needed in finding how to lift up everyone else left behind today.

Well you better not support cancer research either, as to at goes to the rich first long before it trickles down to public health systems.

I actually did half my PhD on cancer research and yeah I ideally want no part in it. At least the way it’s done in academia today.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#408

Post by telotortium »

scotty79 wrote: post #363
yreg wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Raising children (and later, grandchildren) is the obvious answer.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#409

Post by comboy »

scotty79 wrote: post #397
comboy wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Death will simply takes us back to where we came from before our birth. > Death is the end of everything for you. Both of you these are objective. You can think you are insignificant or you can think that you are part of the big bang which is still happening. It's just narration and if it makes no practical difference (as it would seem in these cases), everybody can choose whatever makes him feel better, there is n…

You can think whatever you want. But in almost all cases you are wrong. And you can only choose what makes you feel better in matters that don't matter. In all others you are almost always better off choosing what is actually correct. You can choose a narrative that pi equals 3 because it makes you feel better but you won't be doing world or yourself any favors if you choose to make real world decisions based on that…

If you want to be correct, there's hardly any "you" to begin with. Given basic physics, cultural and physical context (whether that's atmosphere and biosphere or 21st century and technolgy), dropping cartesian theatre you will have a hard time finding "you". It's mostly a language construct.

If you want analogy - we are looking on the river and we see a vortex, then it disappears. Parent comment is like - oh, the water is again flowing in the straight flow. And your version is - there was a vortex, and now it's gone forever, nothing left of it.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#410

Post by endtime »

saiya-jin wrote: post #294
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 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…

This is what being a supervillain feels like from the inside.
Post reply on HN