
Father of Cryonics Dies at 92, Frozen in Cryonics Institute  - aditiyaa1
http://www.dailytech.com/Father+of+Cryonics+Dies+at+92+Frozen+in+Cryonics+Institute+/article22273.htm
======
reasonattlm
The scientist's open letter on cryonics, signed by people such as Gregory
Stock, Stanley Shostak, Ralph Merkle, Eric Drexler, Aubrey de Grey, Gregory
Benford, and a range of researchers in the life sciences you're probably less
familiar with, but who are household names in their fields.

[http://evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-
on-c...](http://evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-on-cryonics/)

A layman's introduction to cryonics:

<http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2001/11/cryonics.php>

Lots of deeper technical details can be found at Alcor (which maintains a
better web presence than the Cryonics Institute):

<http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm>

The basic process is pretty similar between all modern cryonics organizations.
Important to note is that freezing is out, vitrification is in. That makes a
large difference to cellular structural integrity. See:

<http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/vitrify.html>

~~~
barry-cotter
I was kind of horrified how bad the arguments against cryonics are[0]. As far
as I can tell noone has _ever_ gone to the trouble to seriously and in good
faith argue against it, they just apply the absurdity heuristic and say its
advocates are freaks/frauds etc. (And yet I have not made my contract of
immortality with the cult of the severed head.)

[0]lesswrong.com/lw/1r0/a_survey_of_anticryonics_writing/

~~~
ciphergoth
What stops you signing up? If it's "cryocrastination", read this:

"I know more people who are planning to sign up for cryonics Real Soon Now
than people who have actually signed up. I expect that more people have died
while cryocrastinating than have actually been cryopreserved. If you've
already decided this is a good idea, but you "haven't gotten around to it",
sign up for cryonics NOW. I mean RIGHT NOW." -
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/wq/you_only_live_twice/>

------
Shenglong
I'd like to quote one of my favorite songs:

 _"You could not feel sadness if you've never tasted joy; that's the curse of
humans - born in passion you destroy"_

While I find the concept of cryonics fascinating, and feel the science should
be researched more, I also feel death is important. Not only is it a natural
part of life, but it's also the catalyst that enables enjoyment. I'd be
extremely apathetic towards everything if I knew I'd live forever. And then,
there comes the sociological problems associated with resurrecting the dead.

Edit: Some people seem to have misunderstood: My comments about living forever
is in direct reference to what's stated in the article, not what's realistic.

~~~
felipemnoa
There is no such thing as living forever. We may be able to extend our lives
to thousands of years, but it will not be forever. Notice that even species
that have lived for millions of years die off. Eventually something will kill
you, either an accident, a malfunction on whatever is keeping you healthy, or
another person with a hammer. Thrust me, death will always be with us.

As a side note, people cite overpopulation as one of the problems of people
not dying. I don't think this will ever be a problem. We will naturally
adjust. If you are going to live for hundreds or even thousands of years would
you really have kids when you are only 25-30 years old? I imagine people will
wait until they've reached 30 or 50% of their life span simply because there
is just no rush.

~~~
malnourish
>I imagine people will wait until they've reached 30 or 50% of their life span
simply because there is just no rush.

The biggest problem here is that we would need a change in human sex
characteristics. We would have to change the way a female matures so that she
would be able to (healthfully) breed at that age, otherwise should she desire
children, she would have to have them at a (relative to long lifespan) very
young age.

One other proposition would be the secure storage of her eggs.

~~~
barry-cotter
Stem cells dude, they're totipotent[0]. Work is ongoing into infertility
treatments based on them too[1].

[0]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_potency#Totipotency>

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Infertilit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Infertility)

------
Ronkdar
As absurd as cryonics sounds, without fanatics (as some might call them)
pushing for it, it will never exist.

"If you don't ask, then the answer is always no."

Hopefully we'll see you again some day, Ettinger.

~~~
MikeCapone
If you believe that your personality is encoded in the patterns of your
physical brain, cyronics doesn't sound absurd at all.

~~~
Ronkdar
IMO, the absurd part is, how do you bring a 93 year old dead person back to
life? How long until we get this technology? Who's to say that there will be a
consistent flow of money to keep this person frozen until that time? (it's not
cheap)

I think that eventually we'll probably figure this stuff out, but that now is
far too early to start freezing people.

~~~
bh42222
_IMO, the absurd part is, how do you bring a 93 year old dead person back to
life?_

Or to put in another way, what is more likely: That the future can bring back
a dead old and then frozen brain, or that they can reconstruct an individual
just by brute force computer simulation, no need for anyone to be frozen?

If the later is as likely as the first, what exactly is the point of freezing?

Perhaps you might be better of trying to create interesting things which will
make the distant future more likely to want to simulate you in high precision?

Or perhaps Aubrey DeGray would be much better off applying his impressive
brains to getting an MD and going into basic research, instead of being a
cheerleader for his ideas with only a Gerontology PhD.

~~~
MikeCapone
Aubrey's foundation funds tons of lab research that wouldn't be otherwise
done, as well as editing a very well regarded journal about human aging
(Rejuvenation Research). The fact that he isn't in a lab doesn't make him any
less of a scientist; sometimes having the ideas and doing the high-level
synthesis work is more valuable than doing lab work that any number of people
can do.

I suggest you read his book (amazon: Ending Aging) and then make up your mind
about his ideas, rather than after having only heard the soundbites.

~~~
bh42222
I have red his book, it's like nails on a chalkboard to my brain. My problem
with it? I know too much. I am not an MD but I work with them, I write medical
R&D software.

If you are passionate about the subject, step out of the Aubrey lake and dive
into the huge ocean that is next to it. It's not nearly as optimistic, but is
much more relevant.

~~~
MikeCapone
You've basically said nothing. Could you add some specifics to your criticism
of Aubrey's thesis? And please don't assume that I don't know any biology.

~~~
bh42222
I can't get specific because De Gray's theories are either too general or so
wrong as to not even be wrong.

So lets stick to fundamentals. His basic argument: _... the fundamental
knowledge needed to develop effective anti-aging medicine mostly already
exists, and that the science is ahead of the funding._

In other words, big pharma with all its money and all those huge profits
coming form treating age related diseases, is just not interested in spending
more to develop more such drugs? I mean the cure for agings is just sitting
there, and all they have to do is put a few people to work on it, but nope,
not interested.

All those scientists can't see the forest for the trees, but Aubrey does see
it!

Does this give you any kind of a pause? I mean, sure he might be _the_
visionary of our age, but how likely is that?

Imagine this was about algorithms. And someone claimed the basic theory to
solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time already exits, someone just needs to
implement the algorithms. Would that person be taken seriously?

Does it not bother you at all that so many in the tech community are a buzz
with his theories, but the life sciences community not so much? What's keeping
Craig Venter from curing aging in a couple of weeks? Pro-aging and pro-death
bias?

That is another one of Aubrey's claims, that a lot of his opponents are just
_hypnotized_ by our pro-aging and pro-death Stockholm syndrome culture.

Let me ask you this, can you provide me with specific evidence that Aubrey's
main theories are NOT pure charlatanry?

Because the generic "We can like totally to do this, if we just try guys!" is
not even wrong.

~~~
MikeCapone
I don't believe you've read his book. This isn't his argument at all, not even
close. I'm not sure who you're attacking here, but it's not Aubrey or SENS.

------
flurie
From <http://www.alcor.org/cryomyths.html#myth3>

The purpose of cryonics is to save the lives of living people, not inter the
bodies of dead people. Death is a neurological process that begins after the
heart stops. A stopped heart only causes death if nothing is done when the
heart stops. Cryonics proposes to do something. In the words of a mainstream
critical care expert writing for the American College of Surgeons, "In this
era of critical care, death is more a process than an event.... A prognosis of
death...cannot serve as a diagnosis."

I don't feel that I understand this fully. Is there a point in this "process"
from which we've already brought people back, or is this all just conjecture?

~~~
mmaro
CPR brings people back from the dead; before the 60s, they generally stayed
dead.

------
ChuckMcM
I've always felt, in a very non-disparaging way, that cryonics filled the need
for secular humanists to believe in an afterlife.

An interesting point was brought up in the comments too, which is if we had a
bunch of frozen folks from the 1600's and we could unfreeze them and bring
them back to life, would that be the _right_ choice?

That is the moral 'nub' which I find fascinating about this stuff (and yes it
has been chewed fruitfully by writers before).

So imagine you could bring someone back from the 60's. What would they do
today? The most brilliant computer designer would probably de-thaw believing
that the IBM 360 with its channel architecture was the coolest thing. Show
them the multi-issue pipeline of a modern microprocessor with register
coloring, branch prediction, and early instruction retirement and their brain
would explode.

When you are young the wonder of a new thing gives you the energy to read
about how it works, when you're older (or just in a hurry) having to spend
time reading the manual or 'fiddling with' a tool to understand it enough to
use it is bothersome. Can you imagine waking up and everything you know is
expected to be known by teens ? All your hard earned wisdom is worthless?

Since we're speculating there are things we can't really know but we can
wonder about.

So what will be the economic status of these people once thawed? It could be
'good' in a post singularity world where anything can be made for 'free', or
it could be 'bad' where thawed people are treated like the property of the
person who paid to thaw them.

I would hate to find myself waking up, fuzzily, and have an insistent voice
saying, "you've been reanimated by xyzcorp, click 'yes' to agree to their
terms for paying off your debt to them, or 'no thankyou' to be re-frozen."

~~~
mmaro
Well, as long as we're considering all sorts of hypothetical scenarios,
consider this one:

1\. You die in a year or two from terminal illness or an accident.

2\. You purchased a life insurance policy when you were healthy, so cryonics
is very cheap.

3\. Unforeseen advances in AI/nanotech/medicine allow you to be revived in
just 15-20 years.

4\. You are back from the dead and find subsistence (let alone wealth) in the
near future superior to your old life.

------
gojomo
Here, let me fix that headline:

 _Father of Cryonics_ "Dies" _at 92_

------
joejohnson
Apparently he also froze his two wives... that might be awkward if they all
get reanimated.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Let's hope they all get to deal with that awkwardness at some point in the
future, because it beats the alternative.

------
torstesu
I forsee a terrible dispute when Ettinger _and his two wives_ are brought back
to life. Poor man.

~~~
bryanlarsen
When the alternative is eternal death, I'm sure he'd love to have the dispute.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Objection, asserting facts that are not in evidence :-)

Some folks will tell you that death is merely a transition to an alternate
form of living. Some folks will tell you that if your cells are cryogenically
frozen can get defrosted later. Both ideas are taken on faith, they may both
be true, they may neither be true.

If someone reading this is pursuing a writing career in fiction I would be
love to read a story about a bunch of souls, who have died, have had their
mortal remains frozen, and now as dead people been able to see that there is
an afterlife, but they can't go there because their mortal remains might be
reanimated and they would go back, how they deal with it and what they do. Do
they figure out a way to 'break' the cryonics system, allowing them to decay
and move on? Do they go insane stuck between heaven and earth? Do they wander
the planet vicariously living through other people's experiences. Maybe a TV
series in there somewhere.

~~~
rictic
_Some folks will tell you that death is merely a transition to an alternate
form of living. Some folks will tell you that if your cells are cryogenically
frozen can get defrosted later. Both ideas are taken on faith, they may both
be true, they may neither be true._

I live in an apartment building, but I haven't seen behind my neighbor's door.
It could actually be a portal to Mars. It could lead to a few rooms consistent
with the geometry of the rest of the building.

Not every pair of unknowns are equiprobable.

~~~
ChuckMcM
_Not every pair of unknowns are equiprobable._

True enough, but the unknowns 'is there an afterlife' and 'can I be reanimated
from frozen tissue' are sufficiently unknowable _at this time_ to appear
equiprobable to this reader.

~~~
lsparrish
The cryonics question (specifically, cryopreserved brain tissue -- the rest is
more or less irrelevant) should be answered within a few centuries.

