Cryopreservement?Is it plausible?

[Dustypuppy]

The idea of freezing ones body untill a later date when medicine will have developed enough to cure any ailments etc,whereupon the individual can be brought back to life and live happily ever after blah blah! What happens to ones spirit in this time though, can it remain encased in the frozen body, or will it depart and then return, or depart for good? Finally is it an ethical concept?Potentially preserving a lifespan artificially which should have come to its natural end?x(Sorry I mean Cryonics!!!!)

[Zibblsnrt]

It's been done at a small level - mostly for simpler animals, which have been put under and then successfully revived. That can't be done for humans yet at our current technology.

A small pile of people are currently being cryopreserved, and stably at that (aside from a few government attempts to shut down Alcor a few years ago, which would, uh, further kill the preserved people). The problem as I understand it now is that the freezing procedure causes a great deal of cellular damage unless it's done very, very well. That's currently beyond us, but it's possible to freeze someone so that there's a minimal amount of damage that doesn't get worse over time.

The end result of that is that, assuming it's possible to revive the person and repair their original ailment in the first place, we have to wait a little longer because of the cellular damage which would also need to be prepared. Since some of that damage would include brain cells as much as, say, skin cells, that could prove to be very non-trivial. The people undergoing this knew what they were getting into, though.

Research in the area's still ongoing, though.


Finally is it an ethical concept? Potentially preserving a lifespan artificially which should have come to its natural end?

I've been vaccinated. I haven't died of smallpox lately. I don't consider this to be unethical.

[Against The Tide]

As has already been mentioned, small animals have been revived after cryo. I think its harder for larger ones because we can't freeze humans fast enough - the blodd needs to be replaced with a fluid, the temperature has to be brought down fast as to stop crystals forming and shredding your cells to bits.

I can't remember the exact argument - but I remember someone saything there would be a risk of having memory damage when you are frozen - so thats another thing they might want to work on.

Ethically speaking - everyone has the right to live, and so long as it doesnt harm others I don't mind how far they go to preserve a life. It does raise a few issues:
*In the future, world hunger and climate change will change the face of the earth, we will be wiped out unless we enact population control and carefully allocate resources - you really think that there is going to be much desire for people, frozen in stasis, draining resources?
*There will be a new elite class - the rich and influential can be frozen when ever they are ill and awaiting a cure or even just curious about what the future brings. Not exactly demigods... but they will be set above those humans too poor to afford stasis... do we really need another seperation?

I personally am all for it - so long as it is not abused, I believe in all aplications of science..

[Faelon_Moon_Hawk]

The idea of freezing ones body untill a later date when medicine will have developed enough to cure any ailments etc,whereupon the individual can be brought back to life and live happily ever after blah blah! What happens to ones spirit in this time though, can it remain encased in the frozen body, or will it depart and then return, or depart for good? Finally is it an ethical concept?Potentially preserving a lifespan artificially which should have come to its natural end?x(Sorry I mean Cryonics!!!!)

to my knowledge, and now, this is acouple years old since i last learned anything about the subject, it is plausible. however, the biggest challenge they were having is freezing the individual in such a way as ice crystals do not form in the cells, cause when that happens it damages the cells.

It does raise a lot of ethical delemmas as many different advances in science tend to do. I think it ultimately comes down to the question of just because we can do something,d oes it mean we should do it? I'm not sure that question really has an answer. I can see some caseses where i think it would be a perfectly valid solution to a problem, especially in things relating to the extinction of a species. In a case where the last remaining individuals of species X were ill and it could be cured potentially in the future. However, imho, for random ppl to be like, oh, i don't wanna die, i want to live forever!! I dont think it should be something frivouless like that. I don't think we will ever reach phsyicall immortality. There already are cells that will go on reproducing forever. It's called cancer.

[Greybird]

It isn't a viable technology yet, but it will be. On the other hand, it is an awful, awful idea. 10,000 people are frozen because of cancer. In 110 years, we cure cancer. They are thawed out and cured. Then what?

Turn it around: What would you do with 10,000 people from 1897 today? What do you do with those 10,000 people after you've cured them? Send them out the door to fend for themselves, a century out of date?

Resume:
John Smith
Age: 47
Education: 6th grade
Previous job: Lamplighter
Unable to: drive, plug in a toaster, operate indoor plumbing, change a lightbulb, not get mugged, type, accept minorities as equals, accept women as equals, use a crosswalk.

At best, you'd have 10,000 now socially disabled people that would require years of from-scratch reeducation just to survive. People from now would be in exactly the same position a hundred years from now. Children? Sure. Adults would be a huge problem, though - they don't adapt as well. I can imagine that losing your society, having all of your friends and relatives dead, and essentially having to become a ward of the state would be worse than death for some people. I'd be willing to be the suicide rate amongst those 10,000 would be through the roof.

Most likely the government then would thaw out one group, realize how badly it works, and decide to leave the rest frozen.

The technology is feasible, but the idea is a really poor one.

[Pagan Warrior]

This conversation reminds me of that movie Demollition Man with Stallone and Snipes. Having said that, lets take this conversation to a new level ... would it be ethical to freeze a criminal for his term?

[Athena-Nadine]

How would a person extending his life this way be any less ethical than one extending his life with chemotherapy or any other medical treatment?

And why is this in Just Pagan?

[Meadhbh]

I don't know I suppose in the future they could have the technology for it. But, like it has been said I don't know if its a good ideal. The shock maybe to much for them to take and they'll crack. If thats the case then it could be better for them to simply remain dead.

[Zibblsnrt]

At best, you'd have 10,000 now socially disabled people that would require years of from-scratch reeducation just to survive. People from now would be in exactly the same position a hundred years from now. Children? Sure. Adults would be a huge problem, though - they don't adapt as well. I can imagine that losing your society, having all of your friends and relatives dead, and essentially having to become a ward of the state would be worse than death for some people. I'd be willing to be the suicide rate amongst those 10,000 would be through the roof.

Their body, their choice, their lumps. People who've undergone this didn't do so blindly, and I rather doubt future ones will do so either. .

Besides, a typical person who's already undergone cryopreservation is hardly similar to the ridiculous figure you describe there. (I find the implication that someone from the 1890s wouldn't be smart enough to know how to plug something in or use a crosswalk impossibly absurd.)


Most likely the government then would thaw out one group, realize how badly it works, and decide to leave the rest frozen.

You're mistakingly assuming this sort of thing is (or should be) government-controlled. It isn't, and it shouldn't be.

[Against The Tide]

The people who'd agree to be frozen are open minded enough to be ressitant to the culture shock - their money will pay for careful monotoring of their time in stasis, full medical treatment when it comes availible and a class and counciling to introduce you to year xxxx.

[Greybird]

Someone from 1897 would never have seen a plug or an automobile. They'd have to be taught about every single aspect of our daily lives, and that would take a long, long time, not just a single class. My point was that they would understand even the most basic things about our society and technology. Sure, they could learn how to use a plug, that wasn't what I was getting at.



You're mistakingly assuming this sort of thing is (or should be) government-controlled. It isn't, and it shouldn't be.

Who takes care of these people until they're able to function on their own? It will be the government, through the taxpayers. I don't mean this as a slam on poor people (I'm disabled and well below poverty myself), but when you thaw out a group of people with no ability to function in the world, you've just thawed out a group that won't be able to function by any means other than charity and welfare for years to come, until they know enough about how their new world works, what society expects of them, and so on for them to be able to support themselves. I'm all for giving people a hand, but do you really thing the government is going to pay to support whole groups of thaw-ees without placing some controls on the process?

[Zibblsnrt]

Someone from 1897 would never have seen a plug or an automobile. They'd have to be taught about every single aspect of our daily lives, and that would take a long, long time, not just a single class. My point was that they would understand even the most basic things about our society and technology. Sure, they could learn how to use a plug, that wasn't what I was getting at.

Except you said that they wouldn't be able to do even those simple things at all, as though they're stupid and not ignorant. People adjust to modern information society from subsistence living all the time, and I think you're significantly overstating things. For a reasonably intelligent person, and there are no morons currently suspended, large swathes of day-to-day life would either be intuitive, or easy enough to figure out based on past precedents. It happens. Often.


Who takes care of these people until they're able to function on their own? It will be the government, through the taxpayers.

Incorrect.

You really should at least minimally familiarize yourself with cryonics plans as they are right now; you're arguing entirely from unsubstantiated opinion, and your opinion conflicts with what people are actually doing right now on a number of levels.


I'm all for giving people a hand, but do you really thing the government is going to pay to support whole groups of thaw-ees without placing some controls on the process?

The government writes off people in far worse straits without attempting to place controls on them. Anyone who's able to undergo this is going to be more than capable of taking care of himself financially and otherwise. Besides, they've attempted to shut this down already and have failed miserably (or delightfully if you believe people should do with themselves as they will).

I'd be more worried about moral panics from the populace, informed or not, forcing the plugs to be pulled on people. You know, like what you're calling for.

[Tranquility]

I saw a time-lapse video of a scientist who took a frog and froze it. He then put it out in the elements and let it thaw. Gradually, as parts (like the leg) were free of ice, they started to move. Eventually (if I remember correctly) the frog - once frozen - was now hopping away.

[Greybird]

I'd be more worried about moral panics from the populace, informed or not, forcing the plugs to be pulled on people. You know, like what you're calling for.

I did what? I don't seem to recall any such suggestion.

[AussiePagan]

I'm all for giving people a hand, but do you really thing the government is going to pay to support whole groups of thaw-ees without placing some controls on the process?

Themselves. Lets say you have 50,000 locked away in an investment fund. let's say a modest 15% interest compounded monthly for the next 150 years, when you wake up you are the proud owner of $257,055,795,870,145.47


Thats 257...trillion ? What comes after billions

Or lets say being the rich bugger you are to afford cyro you invest a cool million you have $5,141,115,917,402,909.00

That's 5 of whatever comes after trillion

Umm, okay you guys I wanna buy....umm EARTH. :lol:



ps calculation doesn't include tax...gezzz the tax on that last one gonna be a doozie :nyah: