BUT! Who will bring us back?
tsaacrna 08 Dec 2005
My question is WHO would WANT to? And who will be responsible? I have heard arguments to the effect that enlightened individuals will see the value of human life and want to restore it. I find this quite doubtful, as the history and present of humankind throws doubt on this idea.
It concerns me that I have not seen in whose interest is it to restore us, as cryonically preserved individuals? It seems to me that there must be some moral/religious, economic, and/or lawful imperative that promotes the restoration of individuals at the appropriate time.
So far I have not seen that problem dealt with and it makes me very concerned. Our culture seems to be morbidly afraid of crossing a perceived "natural" barrier between life and death. The act of restoring tissues or downloading minds, is an act which is accompanied with responsibility, for any therapies both physical and mental as well as preserving "a place in society" for these individuals. So far our families have that responsibility to help us and the government on some level as far as education, healthcare, etc.
Perhaps someone who is more educated in the process can throw some light on this matter of in whose interest it is to bring us back...
Thank you for any comments you may have.
JonesGuy 08 Dec 2005
As well, it's probably that those frozen with superior techniques will be thawed at an earlier time than those frozen with more primitive techniques.
eternaltraveler 08 Dec 2005
And that "natural barrier" you speak of would not be an issue in the time these people would be restored as presumably aging would be treatable and a great many people would already be living beyond any kind of natural limit.
Karomesis 09 Dec 2005
tsaacrna 09 Dec 2005
boundlesslife 09 Dec 2005
I am very new to the this forum and find the ideas discussed here fascinating. Personally, I believe that there is no physical law that states that it should not be possible to bring back cryonically preserved individuals in some form, someday in the future.
My question is WHO would WANT to? And who will be responsible? I have heard arguments to the effect that enlightened individuals will see the value of human life and want to restore it. I find this quite doubtful, as the history and present of humankind throws doubt on this idea.
It concerns me that I have not seen in whose interest is it to restore us, as cryonically preserved individuals? It seems to me that there must be some moral/religious, economic, and/or lawful imperative that promotes the restoration of individuals at the appropriate time.
So far I have not seen that problem dealt with and it makes me very concerned. Our culture seems to be morbidly afraid of crossing a perceived "natural" barrier between life and death. The act of restoring tissues or downloading minds, is an act which is accompanied with responsibility, for any therapies both physical and mental as well as preserving "a place in society" for these individuals. So far our families have that responsibility to help us and the government on some level as far as education, healthcare, etc.
Perhaps someone who is more educated in the process can throw some light on this matter of in whose interest it is to bring us back...
Thank you for any comments you may have.
Hi, tsaacrna, and let me add my welcome to the others you've already received!
For a somewhat out-of-date look at the same concerns you mention, voiced nearly twenty years ago, see an ancient article about this titled Lifepact, and another that was a bit more analytical ( New Directions in Cryonics). These are, as you observe, not matters that seem to command a great deal of current concern, but I think they really should.
From today's perspective (about twenty years later) there are reasonable ways to foresee what will be very likely to happen once the practice of preserving people at death becomes widespread (after suspended animation is perfected), and these same ways of dealing with the "who will bring us back" enigma can be put to work in how one constructs one's suspension paperwork today.
I'd like to write more about this, a little later (no time at the moment). Meanwhile, maybe some other perspectives on how this will have been brought forward, as to how those placed into suspension at this time may be provided for.
Certainly we have no way of even guessing, at this time, what extent of care in the way of "labor of consciousness" will be appropriate to helping someone who is "reentering" gear up for the pace of what the world will be engaged in at that time (perhaps 50-100 years from now?)
Books like "China, Inc." and "Three Billion New Capitalists" suggest that it's going to be an incredible fast track, if things keep going in the direction they are now taking, especially if you add in workable anti-aging, perfected suspended animation, and (of course) molecular manufacturing (nanotechnology).
Those of us who wake up in the middle of an era like that are almost sure to experience it in a way that will be analogous to waking up in the midst of the acceleration of a rocket sled under full thrust, at the moment of our reanimations! Wow! What a ride that's going to be!
Again, thanks for your posting. It's good to see someone else take this side of cryonics seriously, and be concerned about it.
Boundless Life,
boundlesslife
Reference links to China, Inc. and Three Billion New Capitalists
bgwowk 10 Dec 2005
Cryonics is a community enterprise with a community ethic to care and revive patients becaue that's the way other members of the community want to be treated. Let's not forget that.
Per the Alcor FAQ:
http://www.alcor.org...aq07.html#today
Q: What would the future want with people from today?
A: If someone is still cryopreserved when technology becomes available to revive them, then they will be revived simply because there are people around who cared enough to maintain them until then. Cryonics is not like beaming messages into interstellar space, or putting messages in bottles, not knowing where they will land. Patients are continuously cared for by people who personally care about them -- friends and family in many cases. In time those people will also be cryopreserved, and their friends and families will remain concerned about their care, and so on. Since the progression of cryonics technology makes cryonics a last-in-first-out process, this scenario will eventually reverse itself. People will be motivated to recover their friends and family, and then those people will be motivated to recover their friends and family as recovery technology improves, and so on.
There is another reason for optimism about future motivation for revival. Long before it ever becomes possible to contemplate revival of today's patients, reversible suspended animation will be perfected as a mainstream medical technology. From that point forward, the whole tradition of caring for people who cannot immediately be fixed will be strongly reinforced in culture and law. By the time it becomes possible to revive patients preserved with the oldest and crudest technologies, revival from states of suspended animation will be something that has been done thousands, if not millions, of times before. The moral and cultural imperative for revival when possible will be as basic and strong as the obligation to render first aid and emergency medical care today.
Cryonics patients have nothing to fear from the future. Reaching an era when people actually debate whether it's time for revival is the best problem a cryonics patient can have. The real risk and uncertainty in cryonics comes not from the future, but from the present. Can cryonics patients outlast a primitive culture that still regards them as empty shells ("remains") to be disposed of?
---BrianW
JonesGuy 10 Dec 2005
It's the motivation to wake that needs to be accounted for. If the cryonics company is being paid to keep them under ice, they actually have negative impulse to awaken. Some other monies need to be set aside as an award for successful animation.
bgwowk 10 Dec 2005
Again, cryonics is a multi-generational community enterprise in which the goal of the community is mutual aid and recovery of community members who are in cryopreservation. More to the point, as the Alcor FAQ says, once suspended animation becomes widely practiced and reversible, the "community" becomes the whole of society who then recognize that cryonics patients are medical patients to be healed, not mere relics from the past. The way society views cryonics patients today cannot be used as a template for how cryonics patients will be viewed in a future with radically different technology.
---BrianW
boundlesslife 18 Dec 2005
Suppose for a moment that it's two hundred years from now, and although the odds are against it, there are times when people 'die' in accidents in such a way that the best that can be done is no better than what we call a 'straight freezing' today? What happens to them, at such a time?From today's perspective (about twenty years later) there are reasonable ways to foresee what will be very likely to happen once the practice of preserving people at death becomes widespread (after suspended animation is perfected), and these same ways of dealing with the "who will bring us back" enigma can be put to work in how one constructs one's suspension paperwork today.
Assuming that perfected suspended animation has long been perfected, I think it's extremely reasonable to assume that no matter how poorly, these people will be "saved", the same way that today, the paramedics will almost invariably rush someone to the hospital, even in cases where it looks as if the delay will be so long that there's no chance at all. In that future time, people who are "relatively hopeless" will still be suspended. And it may be well understood at that time how much can be done to "bring them back".
It may not be a total memory loss, but close to it! Perhaps the person once "brought back" will be able to recognize a few pictures, or significant words, but otherwise, it's amnesia, or as close to it as we can imagine, today. And now we come to the important question: "Who's going to pay for it?"
In that future time, it's my opinion that it will be common practice for such people to awaken in an educational setting where they will be reacquainted with their pasts, and with the culture in general. Just as in Thomas Donaldson's great story, Travelling, they'll "pick up the threads of their lives", although with a great deal more context than the individual depicted in 'Travelling'. And, they'll find that there's a "bill to pay". It will probably be smaller than we now make to pay off a car, but it will be there, and their credit will depend on their paying it, so they'll do that.
Now, suppose there are, at that time, a great many people who were "frozen earlier" (like now, in the early 21st century) under similar circumstances (very compromised). What will be done about them? Who will pay for it? They may have partial memory losses, or perhaps they will be even assessed as having the potential for pretty good memory recovery. We can't say, at this time, can we? But, again, who will pay for it?
My guess, and that's about all you could call it, is that these folks will be "triaged" (sorted out) in terms of how much memory recovery they are expected to experience. And, there will be a further sorting out process (for those who are expected to have good memory recovery) as to how they may react to that future culture, how they may "fit in", and (most particularly) whether they can be expected to easily adjust to the idea that they're going to have to "pay the bill". On that basis, there is likely to be some priority given to those who foresaw this, and said so in a formalized way, before they were suspended.
There's no time to go into all the possibilities in this posting, and a great deal needs to be done about giving cryonics members the necessary tools to make this easy, but a simple start would be to fill out a form with your cryonic society saying something like:
This very impromptu example only covers a tiny part of the spectrum of considerations that should be included in such a document The world may have changed to such an extent that one may awaken to find that the average person has abilities we would presently classify as "radically transhuman", and it might be well to state our readiness to accept such changes and adapt to them, or (if not) it might be a good idea to express any reservations we might have about those things. An article on this subject, although over 15 years old, is on-line for those who might be interested LifePact."With the understanding that reanimation costs may range to levels well beyond the capacity of my cryonics organization to pay, and with the anticipation that there will be credit agencies that may be willing to cover reanimation costs, for those who cannot otherwise provide for this, I want my records to show that I have considered this possibility and am open to such an arrangement, to the extent that it is well accepted by all of the major cryonics providers of that day, mine included. I understand that the way resources are held and the way compensation is provided for in future society may be radically different from the way these matters are handled at the time of my suspension, notwithstanding which I am ready to adjust to the practices of the time in which I am reanimated, and do what I am obligated to do in a manner fully in accord with society's accepted ethical practices of that time. I do want to continue my life, however altered society might be, and thus feel that I am an excellent candidate for a program of the kind described above."
To be continued...
boundlesslife