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

531–540 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#531

Post by trompetenaccoun »

Rubinsalamander wrote: post #308
kelnos wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just an opinion, formed over centuries of humans trying to make peace with their mortality, because they believed it was inevitable. There's no inherent truth to your words; it's just a philosophy. I'm not really afraid of dying, per se, but as a sci-fi buff, I am deeply sad that there are amazing technological advancements that I will never get to see. Even if the world 300 years from now (assuming humans sti…

Stranger in a strange land also sounds incredibly exciting to me. Funny how a con ist pro argument depending on your view point.

You can have this now, no need to wait for death since the plot is mostly about culture, not technology. Seems to me that many die without even having scratched the surface of life. Of course, there is this wish for an afterlife or future re-awakening in many. It's natural to want more.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#532

Post by pavlov »

throwuwu wrote: post #519
pavlov wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 1000 years passed between the construction of the Great Pyramids and the time when the Valley of the Kings started to be in use. Of course decorative styles would be different! It's not very surprising that we don't have a lot of texts about the construction of buildings that are 4,500 years old. The pyramids are incredibly ancient, and were ancient when later pharaohs tried to understand who built them. For com…

Do we only have that handful of examples from that period or are there other contemporaneous tombs that are not pyramids? Or smaller pyramids? The thing I always thought was so weird about the pyramids is why there are so few of them. You’d think there would be lots of smaller and medium size ones leading up to the cluster of big ones if they were in fact tombs.

There are in fact lots of pyramids and flatter proto-pyramids of various sizes! The total number is probably in the thousands, I believe.

Many have also been demolished in ancient times so the stones could be reused. For example the pyramid of Djedefre, son of Khufu who built the famous Great Pyramid. Instead of competing on size, the son made a smaller pyramid of more beautiful stone, but unfortunately the stone was too valuable to let stand and was repurposed over millennia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djedefre

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#533

Post by kjs3 »

throwuwu wrote: post #519
pavlov wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over 1000 years passed between the construction of the Great Pyramids and the time when the Valley of the Kings started to be in use. Of course decorative styles would be different! It's not very surprising that we don't have a lot of texts about the construction of buildings that are 4,500 years old. The pyramids are incredibly ancient, and were ancient when later pharaohs tried to understand who built them. For com…

Do we only have that handful of examples from that period or are there other contemporaneous tombs that are not pyramids? Or smaller pyramids? The thing I always thought was so weird about the pyramids is why there are so few of them. You’d think there would be lots of smaller and medium size ones leading up to the cluster of big ones if they were in fact tombs.

There are over a hundred pyramids identified in Egypt of varying size and age, so depends on your definition of 'handful'. But to your question, there's the mastaba tomb starting from 3000bc or so, and it's flat toped and not a pyramid. Some scholars think the pyramid idea evolved from the mastaba (by stacking increasingly smaller mastabas on top of one another; see: Step Pyramid). There are lots of them.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#534

Post by jodrellblank »

throwuwu wrote: post #530
jodrellblank wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived a modern day life of comfort, opportunities and experiences unimaginable compared to even my grandparents (all deceased now). I've been to places and had opportunities to try things which they never did. Compared to my grandma who cooked during food rationing and had to save sugar rations to make a cake, who lived a frugal life of 'make do and mend', I have the spare money and first world surroundings to i…

Yes, materialism is an empty pursuit.

That's not an interesting comment. What isn't an empty pursuit?

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#535

Post by tptacek »

dredmorbius wrote: post #503
tptacek wrote: post #125

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.

If someone requests no replies, regardless of the merits, the best thing to do is probably to simply walk away. Even if you're otherwise apologising. HN's comment-collapse feature may help with this. I frequently use that to avoid "final word" temptation myself.

I'm not apologizing. This is a public space, and nobody has the privilege of demanding that anyone else not respond to them. If 'kragen wants to reach out and communicate something more complicated than that thought to me, I'm all ears. I recommend email for that, in this specific case. That's all. No drama, but good to be clear about norms.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#536

Post by chrisfosterelli »

latexr wrote: post #477
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…

> per-say Quick note because you seem like the type of person who’d like to know, it’s “per se”: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per_se

Yes, thanks. You're right (though I can no longer edit).

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#537

Post by [deleted] »

throwuwu wrote: post #520
coldpie wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either democracy fixes the wealth gap, or violence does. And democracy ain't lookin' too hot over the past ten years.

I hope your dream job is digging turnips out of the ground. Although given historical precedent you’d have a higher chance of winding up in the ground after a violent revolution.

[deleted]

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#538

Post by chrisfosterelli »

sjcsjc wrote: post #429
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…

Just FYI, it's per se, not per say. Cheers

Thanks. My bad.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#539

Post by Der_Einzige »

FredPret wrote: post #116
kragen wrote: post #62

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 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…

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…

AI and it's automation of knowledge work will destroy the nerd paradise.

The only hard jobs left are things involving physical labor, like plumbing (ironically extremely hard to automate).

Nerds are capital F "ucked"

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#540

Post by TchoBeer »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #358
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…

A world where no people ever died of natural causes would become, fast, a world where war would be the rule, and not the exception. In one generation alone, Earth would go from 7 billion people, to 14 billion. It would be Hell on Earth, literally.

You're assuming that birth rates would remain the same, when that immediately feels like it would not at all be the case.
Post reply on HN