The prospect of being deep-cooled after legal death and later reanimated by speculative technology is what is technically called cryonics. It is a frightening prospect, in fact it is sometimes called the second worst thing that could happen to you -- after death.
Hibernation is something we see in animals, where the metabolic rate is lowered (depressed) for a long period of time. According to this abstract, it also slows the aging process in hamsters.
If we could induce long-term hypothermia (hibernation) in humans it could be a huge leap in anti-aging medicine in my opinion. It wouldn't be the same thing as reversible cryonics, but a very important breakthrough against aging from the realm of depressed metabolism. Furthermore, as science in cryonics advances and science in human hibernation advances, the two kinds of knowledge could easily be complementary and overlap considerably.
However we should bear in mind that these are separate technologies with different optimal strategies. Cryonics works by using cryoprotectants -- vitrifying tissues (preventing, or at least reducing, ice formation) so that they can be lowered to low sub-zero temperatures of -135C and below. Hibernation works by the principle of ensuring that metabolism can be wound down a considerable degree, without necessarily stopping. Even though a hibernating animal has a reduced body temperature, it keeps itself well above freezing.
In my cryonics advocacy I see people confusing these two approaches frequently, and coming to false conclusions as a result. They may think that cryonics companies are promising they will get to LN2 temperatures in a hibernation-like pristine state, or they may not realize how important of an advance vitrification is because it's not relevant to hibernation. Cryonics relies heavily on the idea of being able to fix damage in the future. Yes it is a reasonable expectation that we can someday do this, but it is a large and significant expectation that many people do not quite seem to realize exists. Often they are so shocked to find it exists that they become antagonistic towards cryonics.
Lately I have been wondering if part of the reason for hostility is that they see the two approaches in competition, and cryonics is getting all the attention. Could it be jealousy of a sort? Perhaps we should pay more attention to long-term human hibernation as a form of aging prevention in its own right -- and spend more time talking about it as a legitimate strategy, even if it is not quite here yet. There is a common enemy that both can be used against, and that is Death.
Is long-term human hibernation a nearer term goal than reversible cryonic suspension by vitrification at -135C? I don't know for sure, but as an activist I have to consider the fact that the existing medical community seems more likely to take it seriously in the near term -- NASA is even interested in it as a method of keeping astronauts alive for long voyages. And it is an incremental advance on hypothermic medical procedures used surgically today. It is the sort of thing reasonable people would have no problem using on living patients, provided it proves to be safe.
Despite the fact that whole-brain vitrification is my highest priority, I'm seriously considering whether the idea of whole-animal long-term hibernation is an idea that will attract more attention, funding, and ultimately more practical short-term results. Anyone have any thoughts on this topic? (Note: I'm a layman on both topics, so apologies in advance if I made any mistakes in terminology or technical details.)
Edited by Luke Parrish, 06 December 2010 - 04:57 AM.
