LONGECITY

I think that we should try to expand the use of cryonics such that virtually everyone is doing it. There is no reason to be burying or cremating in the 21st century.

The philosophy of preserving all available information is sound and simple. As a society we have consciously embraced the ethic of "do no harm" -- and cryonics is the logical extension of this. If we ever leave a person to rot rather than cryopreserving, we are taking a huge ethical risk; if it turns out that cryonics would have saved them, we have killed them by inaction

I think this logic is what is making people uncomfortable about cryonics. Subconsciously, they do not want to deal with the very real possibility that grandma could have been saved. We need to call them on this. Make them confront their phobias. Once people understand the source of their feelings on the topic, they will be able to make more rational decisions.

Good idea. Most people just dont know about this. You just have to get the word out. Hook people up with the options, the pricing, etc.. Like, Im wondering who you have to go through to get cryonics into your life insurance. If I knew that then I would begin plotting out how and when Im going to get it myself.

Good idea. Most people just dont know about this. You just have to get the word out. Hook people up with the options, the pricing, etc.. Like, Im wondering who you have to go through to get cryonics into your life insurance. If I knew that then I would begin plotting out how and when Im going to get it myself.

Just ask Alcor. I'm sure they can tell you how. I'm not really sure about cryonics for the masses. Just to put some numbers on it, suspension for a million people/year would be about $100B a year, about the same as the estimated cost of the new Health Care Bill. I imagine in quantity, we could get the cost down a lot though. If we want to save everyone's granny, we have about 2.5M deaths/year in the US alone, so 2.5X the cost. We probably would have to suspend them before dementia set in if we're interested in preventing information death. That would actually save money compared to current care, but just think what Sarah Palin would say about this, if she thinks that allowing you to have a voluntary conversation with your doctor about end of life care is a "Death Panel"... What I'm saying here is the politics and emotions around a subject like this are titanic. It's just not going to happen.

Good idea. Most people just dont know about this. You just have to get the word out. Hook people up with the options, the pricing, etc.. Like, Im wondering who you have to go through to get cryonics into your life insurance. If I knew that then I would begin plotting out how and when Im going to get it myself.

Just ask Alcor. I'm sure they can tell you how. I'm not really sure about cryonics for the masses. Just to put some numbers on it, suspension for a million people/year would be about $100B a year, about the same as the estimated cost of the new Health Care Bill. I imagine in quantity, we could get the cost down a lot though. If we want to save everyone's granny, we have about 2.5M deaths/year in the US alone, so 2.5X the cost. We probably would have to suspend them before dementia set in if we're interested in preventing information death. That would actually save money compared to current care, but just think what Sarah Palin would say about this, if she thinks that allowing you to have a voluntary conversation with your doctor about end of life care is a "Death Panel"... What I'm saying here is the politics and emotions around a subject like this are titanic. It's just not going to happen.

The simple fact is, if you want this technology to become viable, rather than an insanely expensive fantasy, you are going to need to interest the masses. Sorry. I cant even fathom someone saying this should be left for the select few. doesn't make any sense. You need millions of people in order to ignite the imaginations of the researchers and funding organizations. Or I suppose we could keep the 150 currently in suspension and leave the other 6 billion humans to die. The end result of that thinking is 150 people in suspension who never get reanimated.

Good idea. Most people just dont know about this. You just have to get the word out. Hook people up with the options, the pricing, etc.. Like, Im wondering who you have to go through to get cryonics into your life insurance. If I knew that then I would begin plotting out how and when Im going to get it myself.

Just ask Alcor. I'm sure they can tell you how. I'm not really sure about cryonics for the masses. Just to put some numbers on it, suspension for a million people/year would be about $100B a year, about the same as the estimated cost of the new Health Care Bill. I imagine in quantity, we could get the cost down a lot though. If we want to save everyone's granny, we have about 2.5M deaths/year in the US alone, so 2.5X the cost. We probably would have to suspend them before dementia set in if we're interested in preventing information death. That would actually save money compared to current care, but just think what Sarah Palin would say about this, if she thinks that allowing you to have a voluntary conversation with your doctor about end of life care is a "Death Panel"... What I'm saying here is the politics and emotions around a subject like this are titanic. It's just not going to happen.

The simple fact is, if you want this technology to become viable, rather than an insanely expensive fantasy, you are going to need to interest the masses. Sorry. I cant even fathom someone saying this should be left for the select few. doesn't make any sense. You need millions of people in order to ignite the imaginations of the researchers and funding organizations. Or I suppose we could keep the 150 currently in suspension and leave the other 6 billion humans to die. The end result of that thinking is 150 people in suspension who never get reanimated.

It's not left for the select few now; anyone at all can do it, all they have to do is come up with the money. With that as a selection filter, there are easily 30 million people in the US who could do it. And yet only 150 have.

It's not that expensive though is it, even now? I think you can get it for $60 a month even in middle age, not alcor the other big one. If not cheaper!

Im not sure what the best way to interface might be, but come to think of it, why dont we create maybe, a drupal page with the basic info and links and a way to sign up right from the drupal page if a person is interested? We could also see if a cryonics organization would want some free active forum space filled with its target crowd here at imminst, then see about giving them their own section that they link to from a forum tab at their forum. I dont know if that would be viable, but we can check into it.

The philosophy of preserving all available information is sound and simple. As a society we have consciously embraced the ethic of "do no harm" -- and cryonics is the logical extension of this.

Too much harm has been done in the name of "primum non nocere". The phrase spells doom. What most people mean (or should mean) when they say "do no harm" is "do no harm if the person does not want any 'harm' done - in fact do what people want you to do instead of violating their rights". Primum non nocere is pretty much a bastardisation of what the golden rule should be:  "[which is] further improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they want to be done by." (Karl Popper acc. to Wikipedia)

So in the spirit of the new "do no harm" I'd suggest that we inform people of the option and make it easily available (if and when possible), but they must have the choice to opt out. Unfortunately, most people do not want to be cryopreserved and I am not sure if price and availability can change their opinion in the short term.
Edited by kismet, 16 August 2009 - 09:53 PM.

most people do not want to be cryopreserved and I am not sure if price and availability can change their opinion in the short term.

You could be right, but Ide be willing to bet that its more along the lines of that most people dont know they want to be cryopreserved yet.

Once we have gotten the word out to the entire world, and they have heard about this from a variety of sources that they view as at least fairly credible, then more and more people will start getting in on this.

most people do not want to be cryopreserved and I am not sure if price and availability can change their opinion in the short term.

You could be right, but Ide be willing to bet that its more along the lines of that most people dont know they want to be cryopreserved yet.

Once we have gotten the word out to the entire world, and they have heard about this from a variety of sources that they view as at least fairly credible, then more and more people will start getting in on this.

I agree, most people just don't know they want to be preserved, and have barely a clue that it is even possible. That is something that needs to change.

If you find a person unconscious you are allowed to do CPR on them regardless of what they might later say their wishes were, because of the legal doctrine of implied consent. It is considered a safe assumption that people want to be brought back to life. Nobody should get in trouble for doing cryonics unless they have available specific, documented information detailing that the person does not want to be cryopreserved due to deeply-considered personal or religious reasons. Cryonics should be the default, the first thought on everyone's mind when it seems someone cannot make it by current tech -- not the last thought on anyone's mind, the way it is today.

Also, cryonics should be routinely practiced in hospitals by hospital staff. The fact that we generally have to use non-medically-trained volunteers to get anything approaching a good suspension is rather appalling. This should be a standard, routine procedure, and covered by medical insurance.

If you find a person unconscious you are allowed to do CPR on them regardless of what they might later say their wishes were, because of the legal doctrine of implied consent.

Yes, but that has got nothing to do with the rape that has been committed in the name of 'primum non nocere'. Cryonics is not CPR (i.e. there is enough time to find out all the details) so performing longterm suspension against someone's will is indefensible.

Nobody should get in trouble for doing cryonics unless they have available specific, documented information detailing that the person does not want to be cryopreserved due to deeply-considered personal or religious reasons.

People don't need a specific reason to decide their own fate, any credible statement is enough. If cryonics worked (almost) 100%, counselling (like in the case of euthanasia, which forgoing cryonics would effectively be) might be in order, though.

Cryonics should be the default, the first thought on everyone's mind when it seems someone cannot make it by current tech -- not the last thought on anyone's mind, the way it is today.

Yes, if routine preservation were economically, techically and politically feasible. As long as it is not, we should work on those problems. As long as it is impossible and not wanted, it cannot become mainstream.

Also, cryonics should be routinely practiced in hospitals by hospital staff. The fact that we generally have to use non-medically-trained volunteers to get anything approaching a good suspension is rather appalling.

I think those are two seperate points: why does Alcor & co not employ doctors to help with suspensions? Is it a matter of money or are there no willing professionals? I don't think there's any law stopping them.
OTOH the issue with hospitals is probably rooted more in policy and politics (and possibly economics + feasibilty when talking about routine suspensions)
Edited by kismet, 17 August 2009 - 02:47 PM.

Your right, in the 21st century, cryonics is the best choice. Get the word out, barley any people know about this technology!

why does Alcor & co not employ doctors to help with suspensions

alcor routinely employs doctors to help with the suspensions. At the suspensions I was present at a surgeon was called in to establish vascular access.

There is a big difference between getting individual doctors to assist, and getting the procedure accepted in hospitals where it would make much more of a difference.

Cryonics should be the default, the first thought on everyone's mind when it seems someone cannot make it by current tech -- not the last thought on anyone's mind, the way it is today.

Yes, if routine preservation were economically, techically and politically feasible. As long as it is not, we should work on those problems. As long as it is impossible and not wanted, it cannot become mainstream.

I think that economically and technically, large-scale cryonics is very feasable indeed, particularly storage wise. Storing things at liquid nitrogen temperatures is cheaper on a volumetric basis when done in larger containers. As you increase the size of a container, the surface goes up based on a square law but the volume goes up on a cube law. So the amount of heat entering through a given amount of insulation goes up as you get bigger, but at a slower rate than the amount of volume stored in the space.


Another semi-related factor that adds to this effect is that you can use thicker insulation more cost-effectively. As you add thicker insulation, it increases the volume of the container and thus its surface area which can recieve heat. With smaller containers there are limits to how much you can add without it costing more than it is worth. But with a bigger container this increase in surface area is less significant per additional inch, compared to the amount of volume stored.

Storage is only relatively expensive now because it is done on a very small scale. If hospitals were endorsing and encouraging people to enter cryostasis as soon as they die, the demand would be high enough that a mega-facility could be constructed to house them all very inexpensively. I don't know exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if $1000 per person or less (as a one-time fee) would be sufficient for perpetual storage of full-body patients, in a relatively large, well-optimized facility.

The more expensive element would tend to be the surgical part of preparing people for cool-down (i.e. using the best medical science available) prior to storage. But even that could be much more economic if done in high volume. Standby is one of the biggest costs, and that could be cut down (while making the process more reliable) by having more patients being handled at a given time. There would be a certain average death rate, and you would just need enough teams on hand to handle that rate as well as any statistical abberations.