15 replies to this topic

[jonano]

Hi John.

When I see everybody choosing for cremation instead for cryonics it makes me very sad. If it would be the opposite, life extension would be a reality.

As this document show it:

http://www.cremation...ata-predict.pdf

740 000 cremation were practiced in 2004.

If those numbers would go to cryonics, it would for sure make the cause of immortality, life extension a more serious concern.

But some business are born to eat a small bread.

--Jon

Edited by Matthias, 10 February 2007 - 10:29 PM.

[Karomesis]

Brian, care to weigh in? [glasses]

that is to say Bgwowk.

[bgwowk]

The sad part is that 740,000 people died. If they opted for cryonics, maybe some of them would not have died. That they were cremated after they died doesn't matter.

Cryonics shouldn't be compared to cremation (or burial). No doctor would say, "100,000 people were cremated instead of getting CPR." Or, "Try this experimental therapy or get buried."

Cryonics is not interment. It should not be compared to interment. It is because it is perceived as interment that people are repulsed by it. Comparing cryonics to funeral practices merely confirms the belief that cryonics is a funeral, and an expensive wasteful one at that.

[garethnelsonuk]

The worse part is that some of those 740000 could actually have been mostly biologically alive with intact brain structure when they were cremated.

Others would not have been so lucky. Many many people die on a daily basis who could have been saved. In my short (so far) life I have witnessed 3 different sets of people mourn over someone who could have been saved either through cryonics or mainstream medicine (organ transplants etc). Instead they simply gave up or never had all the options available. The ones who gave up did so because they were so worn down by old age and/or disease that their will to live was broken. When this happens I cannot help but feel somewhat helpless and fearful. Witnessing such events at my young age they say will only harm me and make me more afraid of death. In fact, I learn to appreciate life more as I hear the clock ticking. I will not poison myself with tobacco and alcohol for temporary pleasure only to be destroyed in the coming decades and I will not sit and wait to lose my youth and eventually my life.

[jonano]

the money of 740 000 people per year directed toward cryonics would make life extension a reality. Immortality would be a reality.

[garethnelsonuk]

In the long run yes, in the short term it takes a bit more than money. If 740,000 a year were getting frozen instead of buried or cremated we'd see a massive uprise in support of life extension in general and that shift in public viewpoint would be very beneficial.

However, this is a long long way off happening.

[jonano]

yes gareth. even with my brother it does not work or my parents. so imagine the whole.

[garethnelsonuk]

I am curious (forgive me if this is too personal, feel free to say so and refuse to answer) but perhaps your history of mental illness plays a big part with your immediate family. Are you signed up yet with a living will etc?

[jonano]

I didnot succeed financialy in life and I didnot prove anything to my family yet that`s probably a key in this answer. I have a life insurance on CI and will soon sign up.

[rob26hello]

Hypothetically...If double the people agreed to a straight freeze (and of course, provided the funds) by one of the cryonics organizations would that be a huge lift for cryonics?

[garethnelsonuk]

That would be very bad PR - a straight freeze is very damaging and confirms all the myths of ice crystal damage. There is no reason for the vast majority why they cannot get their brain vitrified when funding with life insurance.

[dr_sheleg]

It is a very interesting discussion!

Straight freezing is not reversible! It is true! But what about the extent of biological tissues damage after straight freezing… please visit www.cryostasis.com and read some publications… I am going to put a very interesting paper I found recently in my archive about the current speculative hypotheses of freezing damage of biological tissues.

How about the extent of biological tissues damage after applied the current “vitrification” technology? The current “vitrification” protocol is not reversible too!

What is worse???

I would prefer the straight freezing if I would choose cryonics as an option after death.

[drus]

Dr. Sheleg, take a look at this, assuming you haven't already, it is very interesting.

http://www.e-drexler...f_Contents.html

And although I have a basic grasp of vitrification, and am a cryonics advocate, I too would like to hear from a professional exactly why, in their opinion, vitrification offers better chances considering the whole nature of the process and the advances necessary to revive someone?

Also, Dr. Sheleg, I find your website and it's research very interesting and would be interested to hear your opinion (as well as any cryonics professionals) about the introduction of your gas procedure in conjuction with cryonics?

[bgwowk]

We've been through this already

http://www.alcorunit...hread.php?t=422

And although I have a basic grasp of vitrification, and am a cryonics advocate, I too would like to hear from a professional exactly why, in their opinion, vitrification offers better chances considering the whole nature of the process and the advances necessary to revive someone?

Why vitrification is preferable to freezing is illustrated in simple terms here

http://www.alcor.org...rification.html

The generally beneficial effects of using cryoprotectants (compared to straight freezing) is illustrated at the bottom of this page

http://www.alcor.org...nics/index.html

Perhaps the most persuasive online documentation of the excellent brain preservation achievable with cryoprotectants is here

http://www.alcor.org...servation1.html

Even if one has reservations about the greater dehydration produced by current vitrification protocols, why anyone would prefer straight freezing to freezing with high molarity glycerol is incomprehensible to me.

Dr. Sheleg, whose experience in cryobiology is limited to his one year at Alcor, has made it clear that he doesn't like the tradeoff that cryonics has made in exchanging structural damage for cryoprotectant toxicity. He believes he can prevent both structural damage and toxicity by treating tissue with dissolved high pressure xenon gas. The idea is that when cooled, water would still crystallize, but crystallize both inside and outside cells in a way that preserves both structure and viability. Why Dr. Sheleg believes that high concentrations of hyperbaric hydrophobic xenon gas would be non-toxic, or that the manner in which it reorganizes water at low temperature would be non-toxic, is not clear to me. Suffice it to say that this is an approach outside of current cryobiology, and Dr. Sheleg is pursing it independently. It is neither freezing nor vitrification.

Edited by bgwowk, 14 February 2007 - 05:21 PM.

[drus]

Okay Brian, point taken, you and some other people have been through this already. For the record I don't recall reading over that particular thread at alcor united, so I apologize for not being a little more thorough at that site. Also, please don't misinterpret my point here. I am not saying that I disagree with vitrification, not in the least, I simply wanted it fully explained to me by a pro, and explained exactly why it is considered superior to straight freezing when we're talking about temperatures approaching absolute zero anyway? Thusly thanks for doing so. Also, it seems to me that you post more often here than at alcor united and so it made sense for me to ask the question here. Anyway, thanks for at least addressing it.

What about doing dr sheleg's gas thing then proceeding with standard cryonics procedures? Would this help things at all?

[bgwowk]

Standard cryonics procedure is to remove/replace so much water that ice is incapable of forming, in the brain at least. That is the essence of vitrification. Sequestering the water that remains by forming xenon clathrates would confer no additional benefit, and might be detrimental by depriving proteins of hydration water.

On the other hand, if as you suggest, Dr. Sheleg's idea is applied first, it's theoretically possible that tying up water in clathrates could reduce the concentration of cryoprotectants needed to vitrify, and thereby reduce toxicity of the whole process. (This assumes that hydrophobic xenon would not itself be toxic at concentrations needed to tie up meaningful amounts of water.) This is an interesting question, but I don't know if it will ever be answered. It appears to me that Dr. Sheleg sees no role for water-soluble cryoprotectants, and wants to create a new freezing process based on xenon clathrates alone.