
Freezing Lazarus: The Cryonics of Eternal Life - kkleiner
http://singularityhub.com/2009/04/17/freezing-lazarus-the-cryonics-of-eternal-life/
======
Femur
This is probably the third submission for cryonics related articles this
month. I wonder why it is suddenly becoming a popular topic.

I personally am signed up to be preserved at Alcor (I am the 830-somthing
person to do so). I am happy to see cryonics getting this kind of coverage.

I recognize that cryonic preservation is a HUGE leap of faith. But, given the
low cost ($40 a month for Alcor membership + New York Life insurance) I think
the risk is worth it. This is especially true given the popular alternatives:
being put under dirt or turned into ashes.

Edit: changed 'target' to 'topic'

~~~
CaptainMorgan
This is the part I found most inviting about the whole process; the fact that
it's covered by life insurance? Wow! And you raise the excellent point of
options, what are the better options? Cremated? no thanks... Six feet under?
I'd rather not sit to rot. I find that given this preservation is easily
accessible by insurance, I would expect more people to sign up for it. I know
I'm considering it on the options alone... what do you have to lose? Either
way, as the article points out, the decision is based on faith... but maybe it
also comes down to taste and a little bit of morality or how you were brought
up (there's also logic to consider if one is educated).

Maybe some things to be lost are if one is to be resurrected, pushing the
consciousness aside, one would have to be sure one's estate is preserved too-
otherwise, one might come back homeless. Also, could you live 100 years from
now, without any of your family members (except maybe their offspring) because
they didn't feel right about doing it?

Very interesting and thought provoking article.

~~~
Femur
>This is the part I found most inviting about the whole process; the fact that
it's covered by life insurance?

I know! It is a pretty sweet deal.

>I would expect more people to sign up for it.

I totally agree. From my perspective, i would think cryonics would be MUCH
more popular. I think it has to do with the fact that death and dying are just
plain touchy subjects that people don't like to think about.

> I know I'm considering it on the options alone... what do you have to lose?

Not much; just some money. Signing up is not hard and I highly recommend it if
you are seriously considering it.

>you're basing your decision on faith

This is true and as an educated person, I have trouble with this reliance on
faith. But I do have "faith" (rather I believe in the likelihood) that man
will solve problems. We will discover the Higgs Boson, we will go to mars, we
will clone a human and we will figure out a way to wake these Corpse-Popsicles
up. If other want to call that faith, then faith I have.

------
philwelch
The interesting thing about cryogenic preservation is, there's no downside
(you just stay dead) and a pretty awesome upside (you get resurrected
centuries later in a world where we have the technology to resurrect the
dead). There's no "leap of faith" involved here, just the recognition that if
all else fails, you lose nothing.

OK, I guess screwing your kids out of $150,000 worth of life insurance money
is a downside too.

~~~
Radix
Pascal's Wager

~~~
philwelch
Pascal's Wager breaks down as soon as you posit more than one competing
religion. Cryogenics doesn't have the same problem.

Pascal's Wager also requires you to actually believe something. Belief is
neither voluntary nor governed by rational wagering. A cryogenics user doesn't
have to actually believe he'll be resurrected to sign up for cryogenics,
though.

~~~
Radix
Good points. Thank you.

You've clearly articulated why I rejected Pascal's wager when I thought of it.
I'm not sure I would have communicated as well to some other if I needed to.

------
biohacker42
_The biggest leap of faith surrounding cryonic preservation - and the greatest
omission on the part of its proponents - is the sticky question of
consciousness._

I can think of bigger leaps of faith.

For one, there's the question of what ice does to tissue. Ice crystals shred
cells. Some things of small enough volume, like rabbit kidneys, can be frozen
faster then ice crystals grow. But the problem is ice crystals also grow when
something is unfrozen. And there is no equivalent super fast unfreezing.
Unless you count burning. Tissue damage occurs again.

So the question if a future technology will ever be able to stitch together a
brain shredded by ice crystals is a very important one.

If we could just freeze something as simple as a heart, never mind more
complicated organs like kidneys, it would save countless lives. I mean organ
transplants, not resurrection.

~~~
Femur
>So the question if a future technology will ever be able to stitch together a
brain shredded by ice crystals is a very important one.

Absolutely! There are so many variables that come into play. Lets say that a
significant percentage of brain cells become irreparably damaged; how much of
an impact would this have on memory recollection? Perhaps some brain cells
cold be repaired; what impact would that have?

There are so many unknowns at this point that you are indeed correct that a
big leap of faith is involved.

------
DanielBMarkham
I plan on signing up for this -- I've just been procrastinating. I have no
reason to doubt that within 2 or 3 thousand years they'll be able to bring
these "corpse-sicles" back to life, and I want to see what the world looks
like then!

------
Splines
This week's "This American Life" aired an interview (from last year) with the
guy who was in the middle of the Chatsworth Disaster:
<http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=354>

I can empathize with Bob Nelson - it seems like things got out of control and
he just couldn't say no (many, many times), nor could he admit he made a
mistake.

