LONGECITY

Do you think that cryonics is impossible without success in nanotechnology? Can we achieve cryostasis without it?

My thinking is that the 2 sciences are directly linked by this imperative. Without nonotechnology to repair the damage caused by our primative cryogenic suspension technology currently available that this cryogenics would be of little if any value for future re-animation.

Another thought that comes to mind is the mind. Can the human mind be reanimated with only chemical memory available for the nanotechnology to work with. Would we simply be a dumb lump of flesh without our brains and minds intact when reanimated?


Would we also need to have a memory engram imprint available on some computer database in order to have information available to the reconstructive nanotechnology so they can make us whole again.

With so many technologies required for a successful re-animation is it worth the cost to even try to preserve our corpse in a frozen state?

Re:

is it worth the cost to even try to preserve our corpse in a frozen state?

When you use offensive language like "corpse", you are answering the question before you even ask it.

---BrianW

I had not thought the use of the word corpse was offensive language. It was mearly a descriptive name of the no longer animate person.

I had not thought the use of the word corpse was offensive language.

It is offensive to cryonicists because it denotes a dead, decaying mass of once-human flesh. That is not what cryonics preserves, particularly cryonics implemented under proper circumstances within minutes of cardiac arrest. A "corpse" cannot be revived, by definition.

---BrianW

The point of the post was to find out who many people here have considered how cryostasis would be effective without investment in nanotech paying off very well and making it possible to recover a frozen person to a living state. I think the 2 are linked. Perhaps enough so that investment in cryostasis might be best maximized with an equal investment in the leading edge of nanotech research that might lead to recovery of frozen people.

Reconstruction and reanimation are very key and should have a path for success determined and funded by the same persons investing and developing cryopreservation.

I feel that if a cryopreservation company did not have an active financial interest in nanotechnology development I would in fact question just how sincere they were at the reanimation process.

Do you think that cryonics is impossible without success in nanotechnology? Can we achieve cryostasis without it?

My thinking is that the 2 sciences are directly linked by this imperative. Without nonotechnology to repair the damage caused by our primative cryogenic suspension technology currently available that this cryogenics would be of little if any value for future re-animation.

Another thought that comes to mind is the mind. Can the human mind be reanimated with only chemical memory available for the nanotechnology to work with. Would we simply be a dumb lump of flesh without our brains and minds intact when reanimated?


Would we also need to have a memory engram imprint available on some computer database in order to have information available to the reconstructive nanotechnology so they can make us whole again.

With so many technologies required for a successful re-animation is it worth the cost to even try to preserve our corpse in a frozen state?

Nanotech can certainly help, but there are probably lots of other things yet to come in the future that can help too.

I was wondering if it would require a brain scan save in some way too.

They will continue to work on all these problems. Brain damage of course wouldnt help a re animated person. Something has got to be able to remedy that though.

Why wouldnt it be worth the cost? The cost will probably go down as tech excellerates right? And in due time something like, or nearing a singularity is seems bound to come about eventually.

I feel that if a cryopreservation company did not have an active financial interest in nanotechnology development I would in fact question just how sincere they were at the reanimation process.

Why should a cryopreservation company have much of an interest in nanotech? As the name implies it's cryopreservation not cryoreanimation. Do you want the best preservation possible or do you want them to waste their negligible resources on some technology which one day may be possibly useful?

To illustrate why I think you are wrong: "if Aubrey de Grey's SENS foundation had no financial commitment to curing cancer, I would question just how sincere they are." In fact they do not fund any cancer research, though, only because their funds are negligible and it would be a waste of money at this moment. Everything cancer, everything nanotech, basically every buzzword gets enough funding, while cryonics or SENS does not. It's a matter of priorities.
Edited by kismet, 12 August 2009 - 07:41 PM.