Live data from Hacker News

What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

bigthink.com

161–170 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#161

How could this be published without mentioning the Bide-a-Wee Scandal touched on in Larry Niven fiction?

I was going to say that Larry Niven wrote a novel (A World out of Time?) in which the cryogenically frozen were resurrected to perform menial or otherwise undesirable jobs, as a form of indentured servitude. IIRC, trust funds set up by the deceased to pay for their preservation and resurrection had been dissolved on the grounds that they were strangling the economy. If Bide-a-Wee was not from this novel, a reference…

Bide-a-Wee was about organ harvesting. It is mentioned off-hand in various stories as a throwaway world-building detail.

It deserves a Wikipedia page.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#162

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 dead people don't freeze the money. They spend it on research. Once it's spent, it's in circulation, going around helping the lives of the living.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#163
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…

> And even if they could be bothered, the thawed would be a lab experiment, owned by whatever corporation pulled off the magic.

Which is the plot of several sci-fi books. The most recent I'm aware of being the fun and light "We Are Legion (We Are Bob)"

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all die eventually. This isn't the Sandman Universe [1]. [1] https://majorspoilers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sandman...

We all die eventually, so far...

you'd figure if biology was capable then it would have found a solution by now. But as far as I'm aware immortality isn't a trait of any multi-cellular organism that has ever lived on this rock.

I mean maybe we can stick some pipes in a corpse and get it to move around or make a digital echo of a dead personality and have that rattle around inside a robot. However, I feel like we're drifting into wishful thinking if we figure genuine immortality is a going to be a some sort of scientific given.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have someone else wipe your ass rather than embrace death? How dignified.

Quoted post unavailable.

That you cannot imagine a reason does not mean they don't have one, or that it is your business.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#166
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.

The LessWrong surveys asking (paraphrased) whether the average human iceblock from today will be reanimated seem to be in the low double digits. That's a lot higher than 1% and a lot higher than I'd put it.

I'm glad there are signups for cryonics, just on the off chance it works and anthropologists hundreds of generations in the future get to talk to a real life human from our time period. If people started freezing themselves en masse I'd have concerns about whether preserving millions of dead bodies is a good use of time and effort.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#167
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…

> on all the reasons I think Alcor is kind of shady

If Alcor actually is doing shady things, then I would certainly agree with you. I read up on them quite a bit around 10 years ago, but I haven't really kept up since then. But my impression was that they weren't giving false hope, and were telling people that the chances were slim that they'd ever wake up again. I also didn't read anything to suggest that their post-death care is something other than what they promise, and I thought it was sensible how they require patient care to be funded. But admittedly I didn't dive as deeply into third-party criticism as I probably should have (instead I just lost interest).

> I really just want to chime in to push back on the idea that "modern" cryonics have the problems worked out

I don't think anyone is saying that, though? If I've said something that made you or anyone believe that, my apologies, because that's certainly not what I believe. Certainly modern cryonics is more advanced than simply "lower body temp slowly until it seems like it might vaguely be safe to bring in the LN", but "advanced" in this case doesn't mean "it works". No one knows, still, of course, and I would strongly expect that it doesn't work.

> I think it's kind of likely that the insurmountable problems here are fractal.

The promise of only-in-sci-fi "suspended animation" or "stasis" is, well, just that: sci-fi. I certainly would hope that these problems aren't insurmountable, and that we can actually find a way to more or less press the "pause" button on organic degradation. Certainly the current cryonics tech is nowhere near that; the hope is that any damage done by the cryonics process could eventually be reversed with sufficiently-advanced technology, and then eventually the cryonics process gets good enough that little to no damage (beyond the cause of death) ends up being done.

Who knows if that's possible, eventually, but I'd like to think it is.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#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.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#169

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.

This is my take too. Even modern cryonics is crude, but it's still better information preservation than the current approach of letting the body decompose and dissipate entirely.

The article covers the state of the physical complications quite well. I doubt we will be able to reverse the physical damage and safely reanimate before we learn how to digitize people, so I think the best bet is likely going to be in digitizing the brain after death.

Even if that comes with some damage, we know the brain is pretty plastic and functions well enough even with entire areas missing.

Still seems like a reach. But what's the other option? You can't take the money with you and there's no better alternatives if you would like more time.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#170
post #20

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.

Is there a proof that we have to die? Or that immortality for a human is impossible? Seems more like a lot in the medical field have experienced so much death that they simply have accepted it for a fact.

If you asked someone centuries back if we would go to the moon, they will laugh you out of the room. Similarly, if you said that people will consistently live to their 90+ years of age.

Post reply on HN