15 replies to this topic

[Shannon Vyff]

Recently when I spoke up about Cryonics at the 150 person gathering for Michael Dowd's 'Thank God For Evolution' at my church, I was asked questions about the environmental concerns regarding cryonics suspension. This was not new to me, and in fact happens quite commonly when I talk about cryonics. The first myth to dispel is that patients are not preserved with the ongoing use of electricity such as with a freezer, but instead liquid nitrogen is poured into their dewars every two or so weeks. A small amount of electricity is used to make liquid nitrogen, but it is relatively pollution free process and the overall electrical costs of a patient could be offset for 25 cents a month.

No company currently offers carbon offsetting, but that could be set up in a patient's trust currently and may be set up by a cryonics company in the future.

Why I'm starting this conversation here at ImmInst, is that a few years back I was talking with a cryonicist and the 25 cents a month figure came up, but I'm not sure if that is accurate. I've searched my email, read through back cryonics topics here at ImmInst, scoured the net, asked some contacts at Alcor and CI--and I've not been able to get a clear figure on what the carbon offsetting costs would be. This is an important concern with some interested members at my church, I was again having this discussion with them last night at our Wednesday Night Meet & Greet. My contacts at Alcor and CI suggested that I start conversations at forums where cryonicists participate, and get back to them if I find anything more concrete out. I'd also like to have better responses to friends that are genuinely interested in cryonics, and are hard-core environmentalists who pay to offset their annual driving and flight costs, plus run their homes on wind power (I do these things as well ).

These are some financial figures put up by Ben Best, from the 90's--that may help calculate current costs, but someone might also have access to more current figures from Alcor or CI:

http://www.benbest.c....html#financial

More specific info on the cost of operating the dewars, from Ben's site:

http://www.cryonics.org/cryostats.html

There are many factors to consider of course--and is carbon offsetting the only concern? When one finds what a facilities overall electrical costs are, and each patients part of that, and what a patient's liquid nitrogen electrical costs are--then is cryonics more 'green' than a traditional burial or cremation?
(also if the electricity used is wind power is used by the facilities, one would not need to pay to offset their carbon footprint)

I've seen little discussing the environmental concerns of cryonics--but did see this discussion by cryonicists at yahoo answers:

http://answers.yahoo...12081104AA6h3qd

"Kacky: The environmental impact of being frozen for 500 years is difficult to quantify. Liquid nitrogen is made from air with electricity, and there are the perpetual costs of maintaining the facilities. In a traditional burial, the person is perfused with toxic chemicals placed in a single use manufactured non-biodegradable container, and buried in a cemetery that will be mowed, seeded, irrigated and fertilized for at least a hundred years. Neither really fits the whole "circle of life". Perhaps Eco-burial does, but that is a smaller niche than Cryonics."

I've also see the fact that human bodies contain harmful pollutants, and freezing them keeps them from being released into the environment. The following is an article of foreseen problems with cremation:

http://www.latimes.c...0,3146009.story

I've also seen stories talking about the problem of toxic embalming fluids seeping into underground springs, getting into drinking water and irrigating crops...

So--what is a cryonicist's monthly or annual carbon footprint--so they can offset it if they wish?

And--is cryonics more 'green' than some current forms of burial?

Thanks for your help

[niner]

I don't think that it's significant. The largest part of the carbon footprint is probably the plane ride your body takes to the cryonic facility. There's not much point in worrying about it beyond about 50 years out, because by then (hopefully sooner) our electric production will be largely carbon free. For the next 50 years, I suppose it could be calculated. As long as the building isn't ridiculously inefficient, I bet the carbon footprint would pale in comparison to the average SUV-driving clown's lifestyle.

[niner]

I just found a site that says liquid nitrogen costs 6 cents per liter. If you deduct capital costs for the LN2 plant, overhead and a profit margin, there can't be that much electricity in it. Maybe 0.5 kwh? (probably less) Our electric production at the moment is about 50% coal. Modern coal plants are in the ballpark of 35-40% efficient, so take the enthalpy of C + 02 -> CO2 and the other data and that would be a start. Solution is left as an exercise for the reader.

[bgwowk]

The premise of the question is wrong. If your daughter were in a hospital, no one would ask for a comparison of the environmental costs of treating her in the hospital versus burying her in the ground(!). To whatever extent people feel such comparisons are necessary, the correct comparison is hospital care, not interment. The direct costs of cryonics care are approximately 1/1000th those of hospital care per day. Environmental costs will scale similarly. So 100 years of cryonics care has about the same economic and environmental impact as a one month stay in the hospital.

[Mind]

Ditto Dr. Wowk.

Carbon footprint should be a non-issue when talking about saving someone's life.

[Shannon Vyff]

That is a good point the 100 years of being preserved comparing to 1 month in a hospital, but since a patient may need to be suspended for 500 or more years--and they are dead, where the person being treated in the hospital is not--many see that as taking too much. If they were dead and buried they would not be an ongoing burden in anyway.

Many people ask the question about carbon footprint, when I'm first talking to them about Cryonics. They don't want to be polluting while they are dead--or a drain on society. Cryonics is not proven, we can not say that it is saving a life, it is a chance yes, but no one knows how long it will be till it is decided whether it was a complete failure or not.

I'd like to present a case as to how it is more environmental than other methods of dealing with dead bodies--and how it can even one-up, by enabling a patient to cover any minimal carbon footprint they have, in addition to their providing jobs in the cryonics facilities, and supporting research of organ preservation that can help the living. Sort of the 'way you can do more while you are dead, and sill possibly get to come back, but if not--you've helped more than if you were buried' approach.

[bgwowk]

That is a good point the 100 years of being preserved comparing to 1 month in a hospital, but since a patient may need to be suspended for 500 or more years--and they are dead, where the person being treated in the hospital is not--many see that as taking too much.

Five months in the hospital, unconscious in hope of getting better, paid for with my own savings, is "taking too much"? I assure you that anyone with such a perspective makes a much larger "carbon footprint" pursing far more frivolous activities!

Here's what going on: People see other people doing something that they regard as frivolous or low value to them. They have a mindset that they should be able impose their values on others. However they can't be so brazen as to say that people shouldn't be allowed to spend their own time and money on their own interests, at least not in this country. So they attempt to impute a collective burden on all activities, a "cost to society", for which the environment is the perfect vehicle. "Carbon footprint" is even more perfect, because unlike water and air pollution of the 1970s, virtually all activities, even breathing, produce CO2. This gives license for them to question any human activity, and hold it to some societal standard of worth rather than individual choice. Want to try to save your life? We must analyze the carbon footprint first....

Once again, it is ethically wrong to call someone whose life we are trying to save, "dead", no matter how unlikely the prospects of success. Either we are trying to save them, or we are not. If we are, "dead" communicates the wrong message to society about what we are trying to do. That wrong message is how cryonics discussions fall into ruts comparing cryonics to burial. Here is a stark example: Fewer than 10% of recipients of CPR survive long-term. But we do not call them "dead" enroute to hospital, and we do not worry about the carbon footprint of those ambulance runs, or attempt to compare the fuel efficiency of ambulances to hearses.

Ambulance rides and cryonics contribute only an infinitesimal burden to the environment compared to living our ordinary everyday lives for three score and ten years. A commitment to vegetarianism alone will offset cryopreservation a dozen times over.

If you must make environmental comparisons, please reconsider comparing cryonics to methods of remains disposition. It sends the wrong message on many levels.

Dear Editors,

Brian Wowk's article "The Death of Death in Cryonics" (Cryonics, June,
1988) represents a significant step forward in the presentation of the
cryonics thesis. During the past six months I have made six different
slide presentations on cryonics, to audiences ranging from science fiction
fans to high school classes to the general public. It was obvious that
presenting cryonics as "death reversal" created a great deal of uneasiness
in the audience; but I did not know how to get around that. As soon as I
read Brian's article, my entire thinking changed immediately. I completely
revised my talk.

I eliminated all references to cryonics patients being dead, and
substituted a strong statement to the the effect that "Cryonics does not
store dead people. It is our understanding that current physicians are
wrong when they say that a patient is dead after a few minutes of no blood
circulation. Those patients are alive, and cryonic suspension maintains
their condition unchanged until a future where physicians can recognize the
true situation." (The ultimate form of getting a second opinion. - HH)

This changed the tone of the talk from "the miracles of death reversal"
to that of "a new life-saving medical technology." The effect on the
audience was striking. They listened much more closely, with little of the
distancing effect I had previously observed. Their habitual ways of
thinking were still disturbed, of course; but, where previously it had
seemed as if I were asking the audience to swallow a bizarre new religion,
now the effect was much more like the presentation of a startling new
scientific discovery. The audience's questions were different also, with
less emphasis on religion and mortality, and more on technology and
feasibility.

Further, I discovered a surprising change in my own thinking. Without
realizing it, I had begun to start off discussions of cryonics with a
defensive attitude -- "You've heard some about this, and I know it sounds
weird, but really, it's a good idea." After revising my talk, I now have a
more positive attitude: "Cryonic suspension is very likely to save lives,
and could save the life of almost anyone in a terminal condition today.
This is a logical step to take. Letting people die when they could be
saved is completely illogical. If physicians are serious about saving
lives, they should cooperate with cryonics organizations."

With this in mind, I was surprised to see Thomas Donaldson's letter to
the editor (Cryonics, July, 1988), in which he seemed to take Brian's
article as a personal insult. Donaldson writes that "terminology and our
ideas about death have nothing to do with" a change in public attitudes
about cryonics. But I strongly believe Donaldson is wrong about this. I
have seen changes already in talking both to groups and to individuals.

True, this change by itself will not create a stampede to become suspension
members. But it will get many people past their initial misunderstandings
about cryonics, possible including some who may not sign up but who
nonetheless are essential to the survival of cryonics: scientists,
physicians, attorneys, insurance agents, and government officials.

Donaldson comments that "so long as I am frozen and revived it doesn't
concern me whether or not my suspension is referred to as `frozen storage
of meat' or 'cryostasis.'" But he is already convinced of the feasibility
and necessity of cryonics. Once one is convinced, it could be called "head
chopping and turkey carving," and the conviction will not fade. The
problem here is not in getting Thomas Donaldson to understand cryonics, but
in getting millions of others to understand it. And to them, the
difference between "frozen meat" and "cryostasis" (or other life-oriented
terms which are more clear) is immense.

Finally, Donaldson's defense of the word "deanimation" is misplaced.
Whatever we meant by "deanimation" is not as important as what was
communicated. To many listeners, including myself, "deanimation" sounded
like an attempt to invent a fancy word as a substitute for other evasive-
sounding phrases like "death with a small 'd' instead of Death with a
capital 'D. '" It was a lot like calling garbage collectors "sanitary
engineers." It sounded artificial.

While "ischemic coma" may be a bit clumsy, it has a major advantage of
being medical terminology and of having an immediate reference to what the
public knows of comas. They know a coma is not the same as "death." Some
people recover from comas. Most people do not know what "ischemia" means,
but that is easily explained.

Language is important, both as accurate communication of facts and as
an expression of our attitudes. As a simple example, whether the chemical
BHT is called a "drug," a "preservative," or an "anti-aging" substance
profoundly affects how it is handled, and shows a lot about the speaker's
attitude toward it. The words we use to discuss cryonics may not change
what cryonics is; but they create the way in which it is perceived. And
public relations is perception.

Stephen Bridge
Indianapolis, IN

[Shannon Vyff]

The problem here is:

"many see that as taking too much."

People have different ideas about homage they pay to Earth and other humans. That is good, I don't tell others how to spend their money--I do donate 10% of my income to various causes, but not all do. Some see non-profits as filling in needs that a government should be filling with the taxes it takes. Some don't like the government taking money in the form of taxes--to pay for the things even currently covered. Others would like the government to take more money in taxes and set up even more services, give more to the poor --create universal health care. In the U.S. we have a two party system of Democrats and Republicans--citizens run the gamut from extremely liberal to extremely conservative.

I'm trying to come up with better arguments for the liberal environmentalist types I hang out with, who do donate a lot of their income to causes, who power their homes with wind, drive electric cars, are vegetarian, pay to offset their flying--for cryonics, as being good for the environment. I think I can use some of the points I've mentioned and niner presented. Maybe some new ones will show up in the thread...

Being a transhumanist and a cryonicist, I think we'll have to develop clean and free energy such as fusion technology; remove pollution from our seas and lands with the development of chemicals; that we'll rely on technology and the extreme intelligence of A.G.I. to solve some of the daunting environmental problems we have now. I'm not a 'back to Earth' hippy, although at one time I was pretty close to that (my decade in Eugene OR ) I am influenced by Transhumanist ideas about how humans can solve their problems, yet at the same time I do a lot of social action in the small ways that I can to help 'the way things are now'.

On the issue of saying a cryonicist is dead or not--I categorize them as in a state of limbo, neither true death nor of course full life. Their tissues and cells are preserved, possibly they will someday get their full memories and being back The law does say they are dead, they can not be preserved unless they are 'legally dead'. The patients on the way to the hospital are also not fully alive, and if they die some may end up in a green burial plot with their family paying to offset their ambulance ride and electricity usage in the hospital. If one of those patients happens to be a cryonicist, they can not be preserved until they have died.

We care for preserved patients as we would want to be cared for ourselves when we are preserved--we defend their rights, keep them safe and continue to support funding for research. They are dead by our standards now, but they may someday be alive again. If I'm talking to people about cryonics I can not say anything else.

[eternaltraveler]

We care for preserved patients as we would want to be cared for ourselves when we are preserved--we defend their rights, keep them safe and continue to support funding for research. They are dead by our standards now, but they may someday be alive again. If I'm talking to people about cryonics I can not say anything else.

They are legally dead simply because a physician said so. As a future physician I know very well that being "legally dead" and actually being dead, are two completely separate phenomena. People are declared legally dead all the time who even with today's medicine cannot be considered dead at all. If you sign a DNR order, and your heart stops, you can be declared dead almost immediately, despite the fact that they might be very easily resuscitated.

Legal death is just that, a legal definition. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. They taught that to my medical school class in the first week of medical school.

If you are trying to convince someone of the utility of cryonics it seems foolish to me to use a non-scientific definition as that forces you to tell them how they can die, then maybe come back to life. Which is absurd. Sure they might pass into legal death, then come back to legal life, but by any scientific standpoint they would have never been dead at all.

As our understanding of our living state has progressed we first learned that cardiac arrest does not equal death, then we learned that zero brain electrical activity does not equal death. Ultimately from a scientific standpoint I think we can agree that death does not occur until the information that makes up that person is lost (information theoretic death) because theoretically, from any lesser state, that person could be "resuscitated".

[lunarsolarpower]

The law does say they are dead, they can not be preserved unless they are 'legally dead'.

Personally I find this state of affairs to be quite wrong. I think most people who are signed up for cryopreservation would prefer that they not be forced to give up their legal personhood to take part in a last ditch medical procedure with at least some chance for a successful outcome.

Regarding your search for an irrefutable argument I suggest you read the book Games People Play paying particular attention to the one called "Yes but..."

Simply put, if someone is unconvinced of something finding the perfect argument to nail them down isn't very likely to convince them. Your boundless optimism may do a great deal to make up for the stubbornness of others but I doubt that finding the right statistic or fact will win this one for you. They will have to come around to the realization that the preservation of a valuable person is very likely possible at a much lower environmental impact than the average American exerts currently. Also have them consider the value their collected wisdom can provide in the future.

[eternaltraveler]

Ultimately from a scientific standpoint I think we can agree that death does not occur until the information that makes up that person is lost (information theoretic death) because theoretically, from any lesser state, that person could be "resuscitated".

After that we just have "practical death". Which means there is nothing that can (or will be) done at our current state of knowledge to resuscitate the person. If you have cardiac arrest in the middle of a forest alone, that is practical death, as your body will progress inexorably toward information theoretic death, even though in a hospital this might be easily reversed. The whole point of cryonics is that it stops this process in it's tracks, such that information theoretic death (the only real death), hopefully, does not occur.

There never is practical death, only legal death. A legal definition we exploit because cryonics is a medical procedure unapproved by the FDA for use on human beings

[lunarsolarpower]

I'd also be interested to hear what you think about my cryonics for the endangered idea.

Edited by lunarsolarpower, 19 January 2008 - 02:40 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

Personally I find this state of affairs to be quite wrong. I think most people who are signed up for cryopreservation would prefer that they not be forced to give up their legal personhood to take part in a last ditch medical procedure with at least some chance for a successful outcome.

Of course. But sadly we do not have the right to control what we do to our own body in America.

[eternaltraveler]

I'd also be interested to hear what you think about my cryonics for the endangered idea.

I'd be more in favor of collecting a wide range of genetic samples from endangered creatures so they could be cloned later if the need arose. Much more economical, and much more likely to get a wider range of genetic diversity.

[JonesGuy]

The ecological concerns are quite fair. Hopefully we'll be moving towards some type of carbon tax. At that point, the cost of maintaining the suspension will just incorporate the cost of the green energy. As long as a carbon tax is implemented fairly, it will be fine. I'm quite happy to pay the ecological cost of any medical procedures I need.

Edited by QJones, 19 January 2008 - 03:02 AM.

[bgwowk]

On the issue of saying a cryonicist is dead or not--I categorize them as in a state of limbo, neither true death nor of course full life.

We cannot say with certainty whether they are alive or dead. However under ideal conditions it is very unlikely that they are dead by the information theoretic criterion. The question is, what criteria of death do we use when talking about cryonics? When speaking about legal aspects of the procedure, it is the legal criterion of death that matters. When speaking of the ethics and purpose of cryonics, it is the information theoretic criterion that matters.

The patients on the way to the hospital are also not fully alive, and if they die some may end up in a green burial plot with their family paying to offset their ambulance ride and electricity usage in the hospital. If one of those patients happens to be a cryonicist, they can not be preserved until they have died.

There is no such biological event as death. There are only doctors that declare that further medical interventions are inappropriate. Being pronounced dead is like being pronounced married. It is a legal act, not a specific biological determination. The understanding that legal death is not death in any specific absolute sense is crucial to communicating the idea of cryonics.

My point with the ambulance analogy is that contemporary medicine doesn't call a patient undergoing CPR "dead" until the patient reaches the hospital and a doctor decides that nothing more can be done with available technology. It's a basic ethical issue. Those few patients that would survive might not survive if paramedics started calling them, and treating them as, cadavers. So it is with cryonics. Once the task of transporting a patient centuries into the future is taken on, we are not qualified to call them dead by the standards of future medicine, so we care for them on the assumption that they are not dead. We do not know, and we do not unnecessarily attach that label to them because of the prejudice that it creates.

We care for preserved patients as we would want to be cared for ourselves when we are preserved--we defend their rights, keep them safe and continue to support funding for research. They are dead by our standards now, but they may someday be alive again. If I'm talking to people about cryonics I can not say anything else.

You tell them that legal death is not the same thing as biological death. States considered to be death change with time and technology. Legal death is the legal mechanism by which doctors discharge themselves of the responsiblity to continue caring for patients with available technology, nothing more. It is not a statement that death has occurred in any absolute (information theoretic) sense. The purpose of cryonics is therefore to continue care of people past the point at which contemporary medicine no longer considers to them to be patients. By continuing to care for them as patients, not dead bodies, we are attempting to preserve life, not reverse death.

I'm afraid that there is no environmental justification for maintaining human life. Keeping people in hospitals is a greater environmental drain than keeping them cryopreserved, which is a greater environmental drain than burying them, which is a greater environmental drain than had they never existed at all. Humans can't exist without changing the Earth in some way that is different from what it would be if humans were not around. Maintaining life requires energy. If the environmental impact of maintaining patients in hospitals or cryogenic dewars is compared to just letting people die, then death wins everytime.

At some point you just have to stand up and say that human beings have intrinsic value. We could and should find ways of preserving that value that minimize environmental impact. However the value of human life cannot be neglected in environment impact decisions. Perhaps you were hoping that the environmental impact of cryopreservation could be shown to be less, or at least not much larger, than allowing people to decompose. Unfortunately that's not the case. However it is *irrelevant*. Less environmental impact is only better than more environmental impact if all else is equal. All else is not equal if life is destroyed in one case, and preserved in another. If someone takes the point of view that cryonics patients are "dead anyway", then all else is equal, and burial is the big environmental winner over cryonics. That's just one example of why calling cryonics patients absolutely dead, rather than just legally dead, is not a good idea.