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

501–510 of 599 posts

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#501

Post by pavlov »

seanw444 wrote: post #484
Balgair wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The builders of the pyramids tried to hide their tombs?

To my understanding, not a single pharaoh was found in a pyramid. Most were found in the Valley of the Kings. It's also worth noting that there are no hieroglyphs inside the Great Pyramids (which are supposedly said to be tombs), when the Valley of the Kings (an actual tomb) was caked in them. Also, the only written text depicting the construction of the Great Pyramids, that I could find, is (again, supposedly) the F…

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 comparison, the Notre Dame of Paris is closer to our time than the Pyramids were to the pharaohs who built their tombs in the Valley of the Kings.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#502

Post by tim333 »

>Cryonics — attempting to cryopreserve the human body — is widely considered a pseudoscience.

It's not really. It's an attempt to preserve the body and not much more of a science than me attempting to preserve some food by putting it in my freezer. Who knows if future technology will be able to bring people back? Claiming it definitely will not without evidence doesn't seem very scientific.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#503

Post by dredmorbius »

tptacek wrote: post #125
kragen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#504

Post by grishka »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #490
grishka wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with death and aging in its current form is that it's non-consensual. Of course there will be people who would like to expire, and of course they will always be able to do so — the same way today someone who was diagnosed with a bacterial infection can refuse to take antibiotics and die exactly like everyone did in the 19th century. It sickens me when people romanticize death. There's nothing romantic abo…

Attitudes are quite inconsistent even then. The same people who romanticize the death of the old will often be appalled by the idea of people being able to choose their own death at any point in their life

Then also, if someone is ill, they will never refuse treatment if one is available — regardless of their views on death. Even if their condition is terminal, they'll do everything in their power to stretch out their remaining time as much as they could before ultimately giving up, for as long as it's physically bearable for them.

So one might say that there's a degree of hypocrisy in such views. They romanticize death unless it's their turn.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#505

Post by toast0 »

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.

Well, Elon is working on building tunnels and (maze) cars, I guess if Mars doesn't work out, we can have Logan's Run.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#506

Post by recuter »

coldpie wrote: post #470
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 ͡°)

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

I'm no doctor but my guess is the frozen disembodied head was already dead..

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#508

Post by c22 »

tgv wrote: post #312
c22 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A spider might have up to 1000 babies of which only a small percentage survive. Are the unlucky hundreds of spiderlings that perish supposed to live?

Sorry, I didn't know we were talking about spiders.

It's fine if you don't want to talk about spiders.

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#509

Post by sangnoir »

the__alchemist wrote: post #423
sangnoir wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What lower hanging fruit are governments currently spending on? I meant what lower hanging fruits governments ought to spend on. However, since you asked, here are some of the things governments are currently spending on, but could bear improvement: eradicating preventable diseases, ensuring kids get good nutrition, better tracking, and hopefully prevention of e. coli/salmonella outbreaks, funding basic research in…

This is a (common) fallacy that could be applied to any funding or focus decision. It reduces to "Why focus on X when Y is more important?". You could use your same examples here as an argument for why not to support space exploration, or environmental conservation, for example.

Government budgets are finite: prioritization is not a fallacy but comes built-in, as anyone who has written a grant application knows.

We have a whole host of societal functions that are not geared to cope with longevity: including social security plus the associated tax-rates

Re: What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?

#510

Post by sangnoir »

GaylordTuring wrote: post #427
sangnoir wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What lower hanging fruit are governments currently spending on? I meant what lower hanging fruits governments ought to spend on. However, since you asked, here are some of the things governments are currently spending on, but could bear improvement: eradicating preventable diseases, ensuring kids get good nutrition, better tracking, and hopefully prevention of e. coli/salmonella outbreaks, funding basic research in…

Those things are nice, but individually they each only have an expected value of maybe a couple of extra years of living time. Contrast that to curing ageing that would put that number in the hundreds or thousands.

Contrast that to mind uploads and humans become practically immortal with an infinite expected value - but I don't want the governments spending any money on that either at this point in time, before the human race addresses certain structural issues.
Post reply on HN