24 replies to this topic

[Cyberbrain]

The episode "The Neutral Zone" is about the Enterprise finding an ancient Earth spaceship which contains three people in cryogenic stasis. After reviving the three, and after healing their ailments, which were incurable back in their time, the crew must find out what to do with these out of place persons. In the episode, it is mentioned that cryonics was never popular, however I like the theme at the end where the captain says the point of life is to better yourself. Overall it was a very interesting episode so I posted it here to see what you guys think of it

[Reno]

Nice find. Khan and his followers were found in a cryogenic capsules in the first series with kirk.

[dorian gray]

The thing that always jumps out at me when I see this Star Trek episode ("The Neutral Zone") is when Dr. Crusher says something to the effect that people who allowed themselves to be cryopreserved were "too frightened to live and too frightened to die."

Her pro-death comment aggravates me because I believe that choosing cryopreservation means that you love being alive and that you want to live life to the fullest extent possible.

This past Saturday on the BBC America show, Being Human, a character who is dying of cancer is offered immortality by becoming a vampire. She emphatically turns it down because she believes that death is normal, natural and it's what makes us human.

Clearly, those of us who desire extreme longevity have a difficult road ahead.

[captainbeefheart]

The thing that always jumps out at me when I see this Star Trek episode ("The Neutral Zone") is when Dr. Crusher says something to the effect that people who allowed themselves to be cryopreserved were "too frightened to live and too frightened to die."

Nah she made that comment about the rock n roll manager who on the one hand put himself in for cryonics and on the other took lots of drugs and drink to avoid reality and killed him.

Edited by captainbeefheart, 25 August 2009 - 04:26 PM.

[Luke Parrish]

The thing that always jumps out at me when I see this Star Trek episode ("The Neutral Zone") is when Dr. Crusher says something to the effect that people who allowed themselves to be cryopreserved were "too frightened to live and too frightened to die."

Nah she made that comment about the rock n roll manager who on the one hand put himself in for cryonics and on the other took lots of drugs and drink to avoid reality and killed him.

Before that though, when she is introducing cryonics to Picard, she talks about how people used to be afraid of death, as if that were the primary motivation for cryonics. (And as if in the star trek future humans are not afraid of death at all... Surprising, since they fight so hard to stay alive even in the darkest circumstances.)


There are other (plot/drama induced) absurdities as well from a more scientific perspective... The patients all standing perfectly upright, the windows on the implausible cryo capsules, and the evident temperature they are being stored at (note how Data and Worf are able to touch the thin glass and rub the condensation off.) Also the fact that there is a room-temperature breathable environment on the ship makes no sense, if they are trying to cut power consumption. (Perhaps the free solar energy makes up for it?) Then there is the major plot hole that the ship is discovered, not in a near-earth orbit, but far into interstellar space. That is at least a pluggable hole, I suppose, given the number of random wormholes and improbable events in the Star Trek universe...

I suppose expecting anything like real science from Star Trek is probably expecing too much. It is sad that this is one of the few representations of Cryonics that a lot of people have ever heard of. It is also one of the few times on network TV when it was not mistakenly lebeled "Cryogenics".

One thing it got right was that Cryonics has never made much of a profit. There are companies specializing in cryobiology that turn a profit, but not Cryonics. On the other hand, non-profits that establish a trust with your money and carefully allocate enough to earn a return on the interest, are still going strong -- just like any other trust that consistently invests money and doesn't spend it. It is not a fad, and is not apparently in any danger of going away. Which is fortunate, because we can't afford to launch people into space just yet.

[drus]

i saw that episode as well. something that struck me as funny was that there was no mention of the technology involved for reanimating those people. i think the doctor just said something to the effect "i thawed them out"! it was kind of unrealistic for so many reasons, i wont get into it, but it was kinda cool to see on star trek anyway lol.

[Luke Parrish]

i saw that episode as well. something that struck me as funny was that there was no mention of the technology involved for reanimating those people. i think the doctor just said something to the effect "i thawed them out"! it was kind of unrealistic for so many reasons, i wont get into it, but it was kinda cool to see on star trek anyway lol.

Yeah, it was essentially treated like the only thing wrong with them was whatever they died of. Freezing/thawing is treated as basically just suspended animation. (We wish!) Star Trek tends to treat aging as the only incurable disease in the entire universe. Being infected with borg nanoprobes is easier to cure than aging! (Actually it's treated more as a supernatural phenomenon than a disease...)


Voyager does make some reference to reversing the aging process using borg nanoprobes... However it has definite limits. The older Katherine Janeway who comes back in time in the final episode has had her aging process delayed somewhat by tech derived from Seven's nanoprobes (by the Doctor) but not actually stopped or reversed.

[JediMasterLucia]

this is the first part of episode the "neutral zone" of Star Trek



I know there is an episode from ST: voyager about with mention hibernation or cryogenics too. I don't remember which episode it was..
the people in there were linked with their minds to a computer and it was no fun for them.

[advancedatheist]

This past Saturday on the BBC America show, Being Human, a character who is dying of cancer is offered immortality by becoming a vampire. She emphatically turns it down because she believes that death is normal, natural and it's what makes us human.

Clearly, those of us who desire extreme longevity have a difficult road ahead.

My week end desk help, a 20 year old woman, just finished reading all four of the Twilight novels and had to tell me about them. Apparently towards the end of the series, the 19-year-old heroine Bella acts like a "reverse Arwen" by becoming a vampire so that she stay negligibly senescent and live happily ever after with her vampire boyfriend Edward Cullen, who got locked into negligible senescence at age 17 when he became a vampire a century ago.

Well, I can think of worse ages to become a vampire, though I wouldn't relish the prospect of never graduating from high school like the perpetual teen vampire Edward.

Now, considering that the Twilight franchise threatens to rival Harry Potter, I have to wonder how its apparently positive portrayal negligibly senescent superbeings will affect social attitudes towards the prospect of becoming "immortal supermen."

Edited by advancedatheist, 31 August 2009 - 03:00 AM.

[dorian gray]

Now, considering that the Twilight franchise threatens to rival Harry Potter, I have to wonder how its apparently positive portrayal negligibly senescent superbeings will affect social attitudes towards the prospect of becoming "immortal supermen."

Negligibly senescent Vampires have been a part of human mythology, storytelling, and literature since before Vlad Tepes began impaling his enemies (or Elizabeth Bathory discovered her beauty regimen of bathing in the blood of young virgins.) I don't see social attitudes towards human immortality changing because of "Twilight" anymore than "Harry Potter" inspiring young people to choose careers in wizardry. Of course, it would be nice if the Millennial generation at least became more open-minded regarding the possibility of extending the human lifespan.

[thestuffjunky]

STAR trek voyager also has one called 'the 33s'. it starts off with sensors picking up RUST and methane gas. and it turns out to be a 1930s farm truck. they track a RADIO signal to some planet and find 8 ppl in cryostatis from EARTH abducted in 1933...

[TheFountain]

STAR trek voyager also has one called 'the 33s'. it starts off with sensors picking up RUST and methane gas. and it turns out to be a 1930s farm truck. they track a RADIO signal to some planet and find 8 ppl in cryostatis from EARTH abducted in 1933...

Wasn't that the one that had the historical figures in it, like Amelia Earhart and supposedly solves the mystery of what happened to her?

Edited by TheFountain, 04 September 2009 - 09:36 PM.

[thestuffjunky]

STAR trek voyager also has one called 'the 33s'. it starts off with sensors picking up RUST and methane gas. and it turns out to be a 1930s farm truck. they track a RADIO signal to some planet and find 8 ppl in cryostatis from EARTH abducted in 1933...

Wasn't that the one that had the historical figures in it, like Amelia Earhart and supposedly solves the mystery of what happened to her?

sure was. also had 'TACKLEBERRY' from police acedemy as her manager/guard. the went on voyager and saw what flying was about in the future. had a few japanese soldiers, the owner of the farm truck that was the cause to them finding the cryonic chambers.

there are also the ones of the planet that went into 'stasis'(not cryonics) that they had to as a reprieve from an invading army of aliens...

i am a space guy, so i can go on on the sciences of such meme. you can join me anytime from 12-12eastern at

and ALL members, please feel free to stop in and share some ideas...

[six]

I remember this episode, and just thought of it recently when this whole ted williams things came up. in the episode a wife was reanimated, her husband had her frozen and she didn't realize he was going to do it- he was not frozen with her. she was sad when she realized she was so far into the future and she didn't want to be there. there's a lesson here people....

some people want this, and they should be able to do it. but, there are people who do not want this, and they should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

[lunarsolarpower]

some people want this, and they should be able to do it. but, there are people who do not want this, and they should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

I don't think you're going to find much argument with this position around here.

[Cyberbrain]

I remember this episode, and just thought of it recently when this whole ted williams things came up. in the episode a wife was reanimated, her husband had her frozen and she didn't realize he was going to do it- he was not frozen with her. she was sad when she realized she was so far into the future and she didn't want to be there. there's a lesson here people....

Yes, but she later found comfort in her future relatives/descendants. I see no moral or ethical problems with cryopreserving a family member with out their consent. In the event cryonics does work and that person is revived and for some illogical reason decides the future depresses them will you allow them to commit suicide? Or will you convince them that life is worth living?

[six]

I remember this episode, and just thought of it recently when this whole ted williams things came up. in the episode a wife was reanimated, her husband had her frozen and she didn't realize he was going to do it- he was not frozen with her. she was sad when she realized she was so far into the future and she didn't want to be there. there's a lesson here people....

Yes, but she later found comfort in her future relatives/descendants. I see no moral or ethical problems with cryopreserving a family member with out their consent. In the event cryonics does work and that person is revived and for some illogical reason decides the future depresses them will you allow them to commit suicide? Or will you convince them that life is worth living?

I see what you are saying....but, if people are not able to make this decision themselves, and there are family issues like with Ted Williams, then getting cryonics to be viewed as legitimate by the mass public will be hard. People don't wan't to be forced into things. some people want to die, and some don't. it's their right as humans to decide....

[Cyberbrain]

I remember this episode, and just thought of it recently when this whole ted williams things came up. in the episode a wife was reanimated, her husband had her frozen and she didn't realize he was going to do it- he was not frozen with her. she was sad when she realized she was so far into the future and she didn't want to be there. there's a lesson here people....

Yes, but she later found comfort in her future relatives/descendants. I see no moral or ethical problems with cryopreserving a family member with out their consent. In the event cryonics does work and that person is revived and for some illogical reason decides the future depresses them will you allow them to commit suicide? Or will you convince them that life is worth living?

I see what you are saying....but, if people are not able to make this decision themselves, and there are family issues like with Ted Williams, then getting cryonics to be viewed as legitimate by the mass public will be hard. People don't wan't to be forced into things. some people want to die, and some don't. it's their right as humans to decide....

If you had children and they died in a car accident would you not cryopreserve them so they may live again. Say they're 18 or 21 and they oppose cryonics, and say price is not an issue, would you adhere to there wishes and prevent them from living again. To me age is not a factor. Whether it's a child, a parent, or a grandparent, my belief is that life is worth living, even if others don't see. Ted Williams did bring some negative light to cryonics primarily due to the false media outtake of it. But it's not an excuse to let those you love disappear forever.

[thestuffjunky]

This isnt star trek, however, what about Mel Gibson and Jamie Lee Curtis in FOREVER YOUNG? You all remember, his wife was COMATOSE and MEL decided to undergo the 'experimental' process and the military forgot about him. Probably 60 years in the future(present day for the movie) some kids accidentally thawed(sorry if there is a technical term) him and he slowly died? That is my pondering question in cryonics! Will those thawed gradually age(if SENS isnt successful by then) and in turn DIE? Like the body is catching up for the missed time....

find me at

Edited by thestuffjunky, 14 October 2009 - 05:35 PM.

[lunarsolarpower]

If you had children and they died in a car accident would you not cryopreserve them so they may live again. Say they're 18 or 21 and they oppose cryonics, and say price is not an issue, would you adhere to there wishes and prevent them from living again.

I'm not a parent but absolutely, I would respect their wishes, just as I would ask others to respect mine. The age of paternalism should be over.

[six]

If you had children and they died in a car accident would you not cryopreserve them so they may live again. Say they're 18 or 21 and they oppose cryonics, and say price is not an issue, would you adhere to there wishes and prevent them from living again.

I'm not a parent but absolutely, I would respect their wishes, just as I would ask others to respect mine. The age of paternalism should be over.

thank you. I agree. it is everyone's right to live... but also to choose. I don't want someone who thinks I have a right to live forever to make that decision for me.

[Cyberbrain]

If you had children and they died in a car accident would you not cryopreserve them so they may live again. Say they're 18 or 21 and they oppose cryonics, and say price is not an issue, would you adhere to there wishes and prevent them from living again.

I'm not a parent but absolutely, I would respect their wishes, just as I would ask others to respect mine. The age of paternalism should be over.

thank you. I agree. it is everyone's right to live... but also to choose. I don't want someone who thinks I have a right to live forever to make that decision for me.

I never said to make them immortal. Just cryopreserve them. Cryonics is not the science of longevity or even revival. If a person can choose how to bury or cremate their parent without consent, why not cryonics?

If they are revived with future science and don't want to live even if their whole family is there to greet them, then by all means let them commit suicide if it would put your worries about personal death wishes to rest.

But if and when you become a parent or if you have a loving relationship with your family and parents, you wouldn't want them to die and disappear forever (if you have the means to save them). If you do, then I feel sorry that you aren't very close to your family. For me at least when it comes to family it's not about politics. It's about love and I'll do anything to help and protect them because they deserve to see the true potential and beauty of life. Ray Kurzwiel for example loved his father so much that he is willing to do anything to bring him back, even simulating him on a computer.

[six]

If you had children and they died in a car accident would you not cryopreserve them so they may live again. Say they're 18 or 21 and they oppose cryonics, and say price is not an issue, would you adhere to there wishes and prevent them from living again.

I'm not a parent but absolutely, I would respect their wishes, just as I would ask others to respect mine. The age of paternalism should be over.

thank you. I agree. it is everyone's right to live... but also to choose. I don't want someone who thinks I have a right to live forever to make that decision for me.

I never said to make them immortal. Just cryopreserve them. Cryonics is not the science of longevity or even revival. If a person can choose how to bury or cremate their parent without consent, why not cryonics?

If they are revived with future science and don't want to live even if their whole family is there to greet them, then by all means let them commit suicide if it would put your worries about personal death wishes to rest.

But if and when you become a parent or if you have a loving relationship with your family and parents, you wouldn't want them to die and disappear forever (if you have the means to save them). If you do, then I feel sorry that you aren't very close to your family. For me at least when it comes to family it's not about politics. It's about love and I'll do anything to help and protect them because they deserve to see the true potential and beauty of life. Ray Kurzwiel for example loved his father so much that he is willing to do anything to bring him back, even simulating him on a computer.

This Ray Kurzwiel thing sounds interesting....I've never heard of it. Believe me, I know what you are saying. I am very close with my family and deeply in love with my husband. I was just talking to him last night about cryopreservation....he thinks I'm crazy. We're young, so I may still have time to convince him...and myself. Look, this is all really new to me. I can't stop thinking about it....I seriously need to take a break from this website, but I honestly find this idea fascinating. The thought of him and I being able to basically live another whole life in the future is amazing...I never want to be without him. Neither of us are religious, so we don't have a problem with the concept of being revived in the future. But, what if I want to do this and he doesn't? I should just do it anyway? ....my parents are super duper catholic and there's no way they would go for it. If I froze all these people anyway.... and they woke up in the future, would they be mad at me? I know, it's hardly a thing to be mad about if it worked, and if it didn't they would never know. I guess I'm just so use to saying that people have the right to choose...and should be able to make decisions for themselves....but I do see how this could be different. I also feel like if they went through "death" once already- and by that I mean they really thought they were dying...and me seeing them "die".... and then in the future, they were perfectly healthy, but didn't want to be there, they would commit suicide and die again...and I would see them die again.... wow.... I don't know where I'm going with this. my mind is just spinning!! ....like I said, I need a break!

[thestuffjunky]

there are also the ones of the planet that went into 'stasis'(not cryonics) that they had to as a reprieve from an invading army of aliens...
well, it turns out the name of the voyager episode is called DRAGONS TEETH. it was on last night. since i have a DVR, i have it on there. i will also record it to my .

i am a space guy, so i can go on on the sciences of such meme. you can join me find me at [url="http://www.ustream.tv/channel/derkee78. or LIVE on thisw IMMINST link [url="http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=31794&hl="]http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?sho...c=31794&hl=[/url]

[Cyberbrain]

This Ray Kurzwiel thing sounds interesting....I've never heard of it. Believe me, I know what you are saying. I am very close with my family and deeply in love with my husband. I was just talking to him last night about cryopreservation....he thinks I'm crazy. We're young, so I may still have time to convince him...and myself. Look, this is all really new to me. I can't stop thinking about it....I seriously need to take a break from this website, but I honestly find this idea fascinating. The thought of him and I being able to basically live another whole life in the future is amazing...I never want to be without him. Neither of us are religious, so we don't have a problem with the concept of being revived in the future. But, what if I want to do this and he doesn't? I should just do it anyway? ....my parents are super duper catholic and there's no way they would go for it. If I froze all these people anyway.... and they woke up in the future, would they be mad at me? I know, it's hardly a thing to be mad about if it worked, and if it didn't they would never know. I guess I'm just so use to saying that people have the right to choose...and should be able to make decisions for themselves....but I do see how this could be different. I also feel like if they went through "death" once already- and by that I mean they really thought they were dying...and me seeing them "die".... and then in the future, they were perfectly healthy, but didn't want to be there, they would commit suicide and die again...and I would see them die again.... wow.... I don't know where I'm going with this. my mind is just spinning!! ....like I said, I need a break!

I know what you mean, its all a bit too much if you've just been introduced to the world and philosophy of cryonics and transhumanism. I blew my mind out contemplating all this in high school and stayed up whole nights because of the implications of all it.

This is my overall conclusion:

Note this only applies to your immediate family: spouse, parents, grandparents, and siblings (if they're not married). If someone from your immediate family dies and does not leave behind any legal documents that explicitly say in specific detail what to do and not do when they die, then legal right of what do to with the body lays in the hands of the surviving members. At that point they can bury, cremate, cryopreserve, or donate the body to science. Without legal documents, regardless of their views in life I would personally give them a second chance in life by having them undergo cryonics, if I have the means and money of course. If (and that's a big if) they are revived and don't want a second chance and are not pursued to live on despite all the beauty that the future would have to offer, I would only then adhere to their final wishes and let them die peacefully if they wish it. It's my hope however that a second chance in life will pursue them to change their minds.

Remember, the future will be an extraordinary different place from today. We can only begin to image the wonderful technologies they will have 20, 50, 100, or even 200 years from now!

Edited by Cyberbrain, 15 October 2009 - 09:15 PM.