• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Arguments against Cryonics

cryonics

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 Deku-shrub

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:London

Posted 30 November 2016 - 08:14 PM


I created an infographic illustrating the major different streams of opposition to cryonics I've encountered. Constructive feedback requested!

 

https://hpluspedia.o...gainst_Cryonics

 

Against_cryonics.png



#2 saj87

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 13 December 2016 - 11:48 PM

I am not against cryonics, after all if you aren't forced to give money for it (ie: gov taxes) anyone can do whatever they want with their money. But I do not understand it, personally, as an adult I wouldn't want to be back in a future that I don't know, where things might have changed drastically and you have to relearn a lot (or even every) stuff again, of course when you are back you will need to survive somehow (ie job in a current situation you don't know, etc). I will better use that money to live this current life as better as possible.


  • Disagree x 2

#3 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 December 2016 - 01:22 AM

Relax. :|o  :|o  :|o

First lets get past accepting suspended animation. :mellow:  :mellow:  :mellow:

Related to deep space travel.

Promote the start of researching that & you're indirectly promoting acceptance of cryonics...?

But going on & on about cryonics when there's no example of life after death in nature is major denial, IMO. :unsure:  :unsure:  :unsure:

Frozen frogs, dry seeds, etc., are a form of suspended animation, right??? :excl:  :excl:  :excl:

Not evidence for successful cryonics... :|?  :|?  :|?


Edited by Rib Jig, 15 December 2016 - 01:22 AM.


#4 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 15 December 2016 - 11:42 AM

... as an adult I wouldn't want to be ... in a future that I don't know, where things might have changed drastically and you have to relearn a lot (or even every) stuff again, of course when you are back you will need to survive somehow (ie job in a current situation you don't know, etc). ...

 

My personal view on that argument is, that the automation processes are getting better. The need for you to work or to know alot in order to do your job will be less and less needed, because of the automatisation of all kinds of jobs and productions. Even today in the factories arround the world there are production lines, that from the resources to the end product don't actually need a human at all. If you have a luck, you will will be thawed in a society, in which only the machines work, and the people simply live their lifes and all the day simply try to be happy.


  • Agree x 1

#5 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 15 December 2016 - 12:24 PM

I am not against cryonics, after all if you aren't forced to give money for it (ie: gov taxes) anyone can do whatever they want with their money. But I do not understand it, personally, as an adult I wouldn't want to be back in a future that I don't know, where things might have changed drastically and you have to relearn a lot (or even every) stuff again, of course when you are back you will need to survive somehow (ie job in a current situation you don't know, etc). I will better use that money to live this current life as better as possible.

 

What I don't understand is how an adult can prefer dying instead of having to learn new things and seek for a new job.


  • like x 3
  • Ill informed x 1

#6 saj87

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 15 December 2016 - 09:08 PM

 

I am not against cryonics, after all if you aren't forced to give money for it (ie: gov taxes) anyone can do whatever they want with their money. But I do not understand it, personally, as an adult I wouldn't want to be back in a future that I don't know, where things might have changed drastically and you have to relearn a lot (or even every) stuff again, of course when you are back you will need to survive somehow (ie job in a current situation you don't know, etc). I will better use that money to live this current life as better as possible.

 

What I don't understand is how an adult can prefer dying instead of having to learn new things and seek for a new job.

 

 

Well, it all depends what your reasons for using cryonics are. If you are just a "I want to live forever" maniac I would argue that's stupid, if you are really sick but enjoyed your life I would argue doing it will also be stupid, if you are an adult that's sick but never able to enjoy life I'll say "give it a try", the same if you are a child with a disease that has no chance to survive and maybe could in a future when a solution has been discovered.

In all cases though, you will be an ice cube whose money is in the hands of a company that will probably have no relatives or friends or whatever in the future they wake up (so that means no one to control the company is doing your wishes in the mean time and doing whatever they want with you), if you DO wake up.


  • Disagree x 2

#7 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 15 December 2016 - 10:31 PM

Well, it all depends what your reasons for using cryonics are. If you are just a "I want to live forever" maniac I would argue that's stupid,

 

Huh?? Wanting to live is stupid?? Then why don't you kill yourself, if dying is so smart and living is so stupid?

 

if you are really sick but enjoyed your life I would argue doing it will also be stupid, if you are an adult that's sick but never able to enjoy life I'll say "give it a try", the same if you are a child with a disease that has no chance to survive and maybe could in a future when a solution has been discovered.

 

Wow!! So it's all a matter of quantity!! Didn't know!! So, if I lived for, say, 60 years, then it's smart to want to continue living, but when I reach 61, then it's very stupid to want to live and I should want to die, it isn't? Or where is the limit? And who decides when it's stupid to continue living? What should we do now that world life expectancy is 72 years? Should we kill all people above 61? Should we buy some ICBMs and start WWIII? Please, enlighten us!

 

In all cases though, you will be an ice cube whose money is in the hands of a company that will probably have no relatives or friends or whatever in the future they wake up (so that means no one to control the company is doing your wishes in the mean time and doing whatever they want with you), if you DO wake up.

 

Wow! You are so smart that you know that cryonized people are actually ice cubes, even though Alcor and all those losers say they are vitrified! And you even know that it's a company, even though they say they are non-profit! You even know that cryonics customers are very strict as to not cryonize their family or friends! They want to be frozen alone! Thanks for all this information! It's sad that you must die at 61, but at least we will have your forum posts!


Edited by Antonio2014, 15 December 2016 - 10:46 PM.

  • like x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#8 saj87

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 15 December 2016 - 10:42 PM

 

Well, it all depends what your reasons for using cryonics are. If you are just a "I want to live forever" maniac I would argue that's stupid,

 

Huh?? Wanting to live is stupid?? Then why don't you kill yourself, if dying is so smart and living is so stupid?

 

if you are really sick but enjoyed your life I would argue doing it will also be stupid, if you are an adult that's sick but never able to enjoy life I'll say "give it a try", the same if you are a child with a disease that has no chance to survive and maybe could in a future when a solution has been discovered.

 

Wow!! So it's all a matter of quantity!! Didn't know!! So, if I lived for, say, 60 years, then it's smart to want to continue living, but when I reach 61, then it's very stupid to want to live and I should want to die, it isn't? Or where is the limit? And who decides when it's stupid to continue living? Should we kill all people above 61? Please, enlighten us!

 

In all cases though, you will be an ice cube whose money is in the hands of a company that will probably have no relatives or friends or whatever in the future they wake up (so that means no one to control the company is doing your wishes in the mean time and doing whatever they want with you), if you DO wake up.

 

Wow! You are so smart that you know that cryonized people are actually ice cubes, even though Alcor and all those losers say they are vitrified! And you even know that it's a company, even though they say they are non-profit! You even know that cryonics customers are very strict as to not cryonize their family or friends! They want to be frozen alone! Thanks for all this information! It's sad that you must die at 61, but at least we will have your forum posts!

 

 

Lol, you are taking things out of context and being so scandalized, if you like cryonics so much marry with it man, I don't really care. I just hope not all proponents of cryonics are like you because man, if all froze people is like that ... I don't see a very bright future for humanity,

So please leave your extremism at home next time you quote me, I have no problems in answering to you as long as you don't act as a psychopath that needs psychiatric hospitalization rather than cryonics.

 

Best regards!


  • dislike x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1

#9 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 December 2016 - 03:55 AM

Then why don't you kill yourself, if dying is so smart and living is so stupid?

 

Careful.

If he-she does it, you will be blamed

by worldwide social media, not to

mention lose your privacy forever,

in this life &, well, whatever...

 

Back to OP, it may be within

50 years that any existing interest

in cryonics is snuffed out by geneticists

discovering how to turn off "grow older"

genetic messaging & turn on "grow younger"

genetic messaging.

 

And that other thing I mentioned about

deep space travel & suspended animation...

 

Those promoting cryonics may have to morph

into promoting suspended animation or similar...


Edited by Rib Jig, 16 December 2016 - 03:57 AM.


#10 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2016 - 09:38 AM

I don't use spying media social media and I didn't give any privacy information to LC. Anyway, I don't think he/she will do it only by reading that sentence.

 

There are many good reasons why genetics can't cure aging, but that would be a long discussion and certainly OT, and anyway I think SENS can do it. But: (a) it will be incremental, so there will be many diseases that will not be curable yet in 2066, 2116, etc. and (b) there are dangers apart from aging (new viruses appear, cars crash, buildings collapse, etc.). So you need cryonics in order to handle fatal dangers that you can't handle at the moment. Also, I'm in my 40s and, probably, rejuvenation therapies will be too late for me if they arrive in 2066.

 

About suspended animation: Probably we will use (some form of) it for space travel some time from now but I don't think it will occur in this century. My guess is that in the next decades we will see cryonics being used mainly for organ transplantation.


Edited by Antonio2014, 16 December 2016 - 09:50 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1

#11 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 16 December 2016 - 11:20 AM

I am not against cryonics, after all if you aren't forced to give money for it (ie: gov taxes) anyone can do whatever they want with their money. But I do not understand it, personally, as an adult I wouldn't want to be back in a future that I don't know, where things might have changed drastically and you have to relearn a lot (or even every) stuff again, of course when you are back you will need to survive somehow (ie job in a current situation you don't know, etc). I will better use that money to live this current life as better as possible.


I don't yet know where I stand wrt to cryonics, but I've thought extensively about the shock of my dead body being awoken by technology into a new, strange, possibly alien society. And I view that awakening in part like explorers to other lands (think Magellan or Columbus) these (brave) parties didn't know what they'd find as they plowed on -- would they sail off the edge of the world?

If we could put you into a capsule and fling you light years into the cosmos -- ala Star Trek, et al -- you wouldn't go for it? Man, I would!

Cryonics and reawakening into a mysterious new reality is something like that (assuming it works and remains relevant): you're suddenly faced with confusion of where the hell am I now? Ever done psychedelics, and lost your ego? Staying alive -- whatever the potential pitfalls and disasters -- would seem preferable to staying dead. Yet then again, maybe an afterlife exists -- WTF knows -- go toward the light, near death experiencers keep telling us -- so maybe this reality simulation is part of some larger whole, and you're never gonna die anyway. Maybe everything everywhere is already immortal within infinite dimensions of universe simulations. Crazy? Elon Musk seems to think that statistically it's more probable that we're all currently living in a computer simulation, and you like Musk and Tesla cars, doncha? So cryonics and its reawakening may be just another simulation amongst the infinite.

#12 saj87

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 16 December 2016 - 12:10 PM

 

I am not against cryonics, after all if you aren't forced to give money for it (ie: gov taxes) anyone can do whatever they want with their money. But I do not understand it, personally, as an adult I wouldn't want to be back in a future that I don't know, where things might have changed drastically and you have to relearn a lot (or even every) stuff again, of course when you are back you will need to survive somehow (ie job in a current situation you don't know, etc). I will better use that money to live this current life as better as possible.


I don't yet know where I stand wrt to cryonics, but I've thought extensively about the shock of my dead body being awoken by technology into a new, strange, possibly alien society. And I view that awakening in part like explorers to other lands (think Magellan or Columbus) these (brave) parties didn't know what they'd find as they plowed on -- would they sail off the edge of the world?

If we could put you into a capsule and fling you light years into the cosmos -- ala Star Trek, et al -- you wouldn't go for it? Man, I would!

Cryonics and reawakening into a mysterious new reality is something like that (assuming it works and remains relevant): you're suddenly faced with confusion of where the hell am I now? Ever done psychedelics, and lost your ego? Staying alive -- whatever the potential pitfalls and disasters -- would seem preferable to staying dead. Yet then again, maybe an afterlife exists -- WTF knows -- go toward the light, near death experiencers keep telling us -- so maybe this reality simulation is part of some larger whole, and you're never gonna die anyway. Maybe everything everywhere is already immortal within infinite dimensions of universe simulations. Crazy? Elon Musk seems to think that statistically it's more probable that we're all currently living in a computer simulation, and you like Musk and Tesla cars, doncha? So cryonics and its reawakening may be just another simulation amongst the infinite.

 

 

Well, at first I misunderstood cryonics, and didn't infer it from comments here, if you get "froze" only if you are dead, well I guess you can take a shot at it. Anyway, I am reluctant with it and if I ever happen to consider it would be on some very special circumstances.

 

If you mean being shoot into the cosmos as in a sort of trip/experience no, I wouldn't, not for any particular reason, maybe its something that I don't enjoy but you would, everyone is different.

 

And no, never tried psychedelics, I don't even tried nootropics and came here for that reason and to get some advice ... for the moment, just visits to my threads but no advice.

 

 

Thanks for your post.

 

 

Best regards.

Sebastian.



#13 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 16 December 2016 - 12:44 PM

Well, at first I misunderstood cryonics, and didn't infer it from comments here, if you get "froze" only if you are dead, well I guess you can take a shot at it. Anyway, I am reluctant with it and if I ever happen to consider it would be on some very special circumstances.


I agree with you, and think it's entirely reasonable to be reluctant about putting your dead body into a warehouse somewhere Russia or Arizona to be vitrified alongside other suspended heads and vitrified whole bodies. The idea is freaky! But if you're only a corpse anyway, your "soul" has fled off into the light of everlasting love, or whatever, then you probably wouldn't identify very much with your body and its sensations anymore.


Then again maybe "you" would: ghosts -- you believe in ghosts? -- personally I don't, but who knows, if we vitrify our corpses, then would some immaterial spirit ghost hang around in drama and misery because this ghost, this "you" or this soul, or whatever the hell, is now floating around moaning with BOO since it cannot get back inside its corpse to resume respiration and ordering latte with a chocolate muffin?

There's a great old movie from the 1980s directed by that German genius Wim Wender -- "Wings of Desire" : https://youtu.be/dwo122meoAA

This film examines what it's like to be dead, or to exist in an alternative realm as an angel.

#14 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2016 - 03:08 PM

If we could put you into a capsule and fling you light years into the cosmos -- ala Star Trek, et al -- you wouldn't go for it? Man, I would!

 

That's not a good comparison. Better put it this way:

 

If a 200 km comet is discovered that will impact Earth next year, exterminating anything bigger than bacteria, and if we could put you an other people into a capsule and fling you light years into the cosmos -- ala Star Trek, et al -- you wouldn't go for it?

 


Edited by Antonio2014, 16 December 2016 - 03:09 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#15 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 December 2016 - 03:28 PM

There are many good reasons why genetics can't cure aging

 

Silly unsupportable layman comment.  :|o  :|o  :|o

IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF THE COMING GENOME AGE REVERSAL:

http://www.nytimes.c...least.html?_r=0

(deal with it, it is around the corner for Homo Sapiens)

 

Like an ice cube that shrinks via evaporation,

the cryonics scheme is going to wilt with the

one-two punch of genome reversal, suspended animation...

 

Scenarios for future mankind:

a. mature person chooses to become teen again & live to maturity several times

b. same person then chooses to be suspended for, say, 500 years

c. same person revives to exciting new reality, becomes teen & ages again to maturity

d. etc etc etc

 

Don't bother coming back with various outlier scenarios, I don't care, person in scenario doesn't care...


Edited by Rib Jig, 16 December 2016 - 03:42 PM.

  • Unfriendly x 2

#16 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 17 December 2016 - 03:50 PM

Please, don't show so clearly your own stupidity and ignorance by showing a newspaper as irrefutable proof of a scientific theory and at the same time calling layman to people you know nothing about. Most gerontologists today think aging isn't programmed and some others think it is programmed. I think the evidence of the former is more solid than the evidence of the later. In any case, that news is proof of none of both theories.

 

This is a paper from the non-programmed camp: https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/25902458 And this is one from the programmed camp: http://journals.aps....Lett.114.238103 But there are thousands of them. So please stop writing stupid comments about things you don't know anything about while thinking you are the smartest guy in the room.

 


Edited by Antonio2014, 17 December 2016 - 04:11 PM.

  • Unfriendly x 3
  • Agree x 1

#17 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 17 December 2016 - 08:43 PM

 

...

Lol, you are taking things out of context and being so scandalized, if you like cryonics so much marry with it man, I don't really care. I just hope not all proponents of cryonics are like you because man, if all froze people is like that ... I don't see a very bright future for humanity,

So please leave your extremism at home next time you quote me, I have no problems in answering to you as long as you don't act as a psychopath that needs psychiatric hospitalization rather than cryonics.

 

Best regards!

 

 

I am currently a proponent of cryonics, and I am a bit different :) Actually, it is very hard to find two people, who think on the very same way.

 

I have noticed, that there are two main types of people in terms of cryonics - people who definately accept it, and people, who definately don't. Average situations practically do not exist. Each person no matter from which group has the same group speciphic bunch of arguments.

 

While reading your posts, I find one by one the group speciphic arguments from the against cryonics bunch.

 

When you study these arguments in a greater detail, you will find out something strange - the arguments for cryonics are unclear, but the arguments against cryonics are all defeatable. Their strength is only superficial at a first glance.

 

How is that possible neither of both bunches to be true, and both bunches to be correct at the same time?

I understand it thatway: the destiny has given us the choice - do we (the people) want the cryonics to work out or not.

Thats why the main answer still stays open. Because the people can't unite over one of these two options - working or not working cryonics.

If we unite for the cryonics, the science will push it through and the cryonics certainly will become true.

If we unite against cryonics, the cryonics never will happen.

Thats why also the cryonics is stuck - the majority of the people are against it, and too small number of people support it.



#18 saj87

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 18 December 2016 - 08:23 AM

 

 

 

 

How is that possible neither of both bunches to be true, and both bunches to be correct at the same time?

I understand it thatway: the destiny has given us the choice - do we (the people) want the cryonics to work out or not.

Thats why the main answer still stays open. Because the people can't unite over one of these two options - working or not working cryonics.

If we unite for the cryonics, the science will push it through and the cryonics certainly will become true.

If we unite against cryonics, the cryonics never will happen.

Thats why also the cryonics is stuck - the majority of the people are against it, and too small number of people support it.

 

 

I never said I am against the actual cryonics, even if that's what was understood. And this is a topic that will have the eyes of religious people on it and also cultural views, so of course you will encounter very extremist opponents (I dont know if this is a correct term) and also extremist proponents. Its like arguing about political ideologies, some are extremists of one ideology and others of some other ideologies. But I find the reason of the arguing to be the actual problem, they are all actually arguing about the UTOPIC view, and I think any given utopic political ideology will work (it doesnt even matter which one), the only problem is that ... well ... they are utopic and in practice is not black or white.

 

I hope cryonics gets somewhere and it works and everyone lives happy ever after but, the thing is,  once you are dead you don't have any control over anything. What if the ones you "hire" to do it change their minds, use your money for something else, experiment with you (someone here said "oh no, they said they are no-profit" so what? Craigslist is a "no-profit", groups like Greenpeace are non-profit (did you saw their balances online?), etc?; also what if a war starts and the place gets nuked, you will be dead still and that money could have been used for something else. I just say there is too many variables and the assumption that people do the correct thing (as if it was something usual, lol).

 

Bottom line, if this works, great, anyone will choose to do whatever they want. I am also wondering about if there would be people (and I am sure it would be) that is not dead nor deadly siclk that decides to do that for whatever reason (i.e living in the future). If they want to, I have no problem, but that type of thing is what I was refering to when I said "it would be stupid". In the end, though, to each their own as long they dont fuck with anyone else.

 

 

Thanks for your post.

 

 

Best regards.

Sebastian.


Edited by saj87, 18 December 2016 - 08:30 AM.


#19 elfanjo

  • Guest
  • 73 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 December 2016 - 03:26 PM

You can get cryopreserved with roughly 30k so money is a non-issue.
I am oversimplifying but it is true.

Now again getting cremated or burried is a no hope thing, a cultural thing.

I struggle to see the benefits of dying therefore much prefer the taking a chance thing versus its permanent counterpart.
I don't understand common sense not leaning our way.

My 2 cents
  • Good Point x 1

#20 Deku-shrub

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:London

Posted 18 December 2016 - 03:34 PM

I don't understand common sense not leaning our way.

 

Please help me expand upon the counter arguments then.


  • like x 1

#21 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 18 December 2016 - 09:22 PM

 

 

... actually arguing about the UTOPIC view, and ... and in practice is not black or white.

 

... the thing is,  once you are dead you don't have any control over anything. What if the ones you "hire" to do it change their minds, use your money for something else, experiment with you (someone here said "oh no, they said they are no-profit" so what? Craigslist is a "no-profit", groups like Greenpeace are non-profit (did you saw their balances online?), etc?; also what if a war starts and the place gets nuked, you will be dead still and that money could have been used for something else. I just say there is too many variables ...

 

Bottom line, if this works, great, anyone will choose to do whatever they want. I am also wondering about if there would be people (and I am sure it would be) that is not dead nor deadly siclk that decides to do that for whatever reason (i.e living in the future). If they want to, I have no problem, but that type of thing is what I was refering to when I said "it would be stupid". In the end, though, to each their own as long they dont fuck with anyone else.

 

 

Thanks for your post.

 

 

Best regards.

Sebastian.

 

 

Each new thing starts as an utopic view. Before you make somethig new, whatever you say - a new model of car, or a new model of telephone - you first generate the idea about it. So this something new does not exist currently when you decide it should exist. At the time between the enlightment and the new working model, it is an utopy.

The same is valid for the cryonics. It is not working now, it is an utopy, but it may start working somewhen in the future.

 

The type of problems, that you are describing are resulting from the fact of disability of the human crowd to unite over a single idea. That kind of problems are solvable by uniting enough number of people ready to support the thing. E.g. you need a large enough group of idialists - people following the idea.



#22 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 18 December 2016 - 10:41 PM

You can get cryopreserved with roughly 30k so money is a non-issue.
I am oversimplifying but it is true.

Now again getting cremated or burried is a no hope thing, a cultural thing.

I struggle to see the benefits of dying therefore much prefer the taking a chance thing versus its permanent counterpart.
I don't understand common sense not leaning our way.

My 2 cents

 

"Common sense is the less common of the senses" we say in Spain. I was away some months from the forum due to this, too many not-even-wrong level posts. I'll probably be away some months again. While there is a 1% of users that one can discuss with, the other 99% are too low level (even worse, they think it's you who is low level).


Edited by Antonio2014, 18 December 2016 - 10:43 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#23 saj87

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 18 December 2016 - 11:05 PM

 

 

 

... actually arguing about the UTOPIC view, and ... and in practice is not black or white.

 

... the thing is,  once you are dead you don't have any control over anything. What if the ones you "hire" to do it change their minds, use your money for something else, experiment with you (someone here said "oh no, they said they are no-profit" so what? Craigslist is a "no-profit", groups like Greenpeace are non-profit (did you saw their balances online?), etc?; also what if a war starts and the place gets nuked, you will be dead still and that money could have been used for something else. I just say there is too many variables ...

 

Bottom line, if this works, great, anyone will choose to do whatever they want. I am also wondering about if there would be people (and I am sure it would be) that is not dead nor deadly siclk that decides to do that for whatever reason (i.e living in the future). If they want to, I have no problem, but that type of thing is what I was refering to when I said "it would be stupid". In the end, though, to each their own as long they dont fuck with anyone else.

 

 

Thanks for your post.

 

 

Best regards.

Sebastian.

 

 

Each new thing starts as an utopic view. Before you make somethig new, whatever you say - a new model of car, or a new model of telephone - you first generate the idea about it. So this something new does not exist currently when you decide it should exist. At the time between the enlightment and the new working model, it is an utopy.

The same is valid for the cryonics. It is not working now, it is an utopy, but it may start working somewhen in the future.

 

The type of problems, that you are describing are resulting from the fact of disability of the human crowd to unite over a single idea. That kind of problems are solvable by uniting enough number of people ready to support the thing. E.g. you need a large enough group of idialists - people following the idea.

 

 

 

As long as the involvement of a lot of people is an important requisit for something to work, it will be wandering in the utopic limbo rather than the pragmatic one. If getting the required people together to be in favor of something good was easy task we wouldn't have kids that starve to death, etc.

I don't think you are describing what "utopic" is just what an "idea" is. If I am an architect with all the resources I need, I can plan a building and that is not utopic is just a model of something I know can be accomplished.

 

 

Best regards.

Sebastian.


Edited by saj87, 18 December 2016 - 11:17 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#24 elfanjo

  • Guest
  • 73 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Canada

Posted 18 December 2016 - 11:09 PM

This is an online community, some people like you are here to showcase how smart they are. Some try to engage with others.
I want people who have never posted to be able to, without fear of being flamed.
Every single one of your posts are rants or are offensive. Basically you want 99% of the people to shut up.
You can post here without being aggressive to ppl you know...
  • Well Written x 1

#25 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 18 December 2016 - 11:16 PM

Is it really true that Cryonics of a whole body is only $30k? Wow, if that's true then for me it's a done deal no brainer. Sign me up!
  • like x 1

#26 saj87

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 18 December 2016 - 11:26 PM

Is it really true that Cryonics of a whole body is only $30k? Wow, if that's true then for me it's a done deal no brainer. Sign me up!

 

Thats what some user said. The question is, would it be 30k for getting your dead body cool or 30k for getting you back to life?. At this point the only sure thing is the first, if it was the last believe me that the price would not be that one at all. If you ask me, that price it total "clickbait", used to fund more research or whatever. Or beacause of the simple fact few people (or nobody) is buying, when it goes mainstream (if it happens for any reason) and everyone is buying, prices will skyrocket that I am not even sure middle-class people would be able to afford it.

Also never forget that research is at disposal of whatever the fuck the goverment wants to do, if they decide its illegal, they will shut them down, if they decide to seizure all, they can.

So basically you would be not paying for a service until the last minute when you see you have received a service, its just an investment that can go good or bad.


Edited by saj87, 18 December 2016 - 11:34 PM.


#27 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 19 December 2016 - 02:32 AM

Is it really true that Cryonics of a whole body is only $30k? Wow, if that's true then for me it's a done deal no brainer. Sign me up!


Thats what some user said. The question is, would it be 30k for getting your dead body cool or 30k for getting you back to life?. At this point the only sure thing is the first, if it was the last believe me that the price would not be that one at all. If you ask me, that price it total "clickbait", used to fund more research or whatever. Or beacause of the simple fact few people (or nobody) is buying, when it goes mainstream (if it happens for any reason) and everyone is buying, prices will skyrocket that I am not even sure middle-class people would be able to afford it.
Also never forget that research is at disposal of whatever the fuck the goverment wants to do, if they decide its illegal, they will shut them down, if they decide to seizure all, they can.
So basically you would be not paying for a service until the last minute when you see you have received a service, its just an investment that can go good or bad.

Sure, maybe you're right, but the thing is is that I'd be dead anyway, so I wouldn't care. It seems to me that $30k is an amazing deal, after all, you can't take money with you when you croak anyway, right?

By the way, where is Longecity's resident cryonics guru, I thought by now he'd be realigning some of us in this thread.

#28 MaximilianKohler

  • Guest
  • 64 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Southern California
  • NO

Posted 19 December 2016 - 03:10 AM

There is info in the https://www.reddit.com/r/cryonics/ sidebar regarding signing up & price. I wouldn't worry about the cost of revival. Socialized medicine is the norm in most countries, and no doubt a more advanced form of cryonics will become a normal part of medicine in the future.



#29 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 19 December 2016 - 03:13 AM

I was away some months from the forum due to this, too many not-even-wrong level posts. I'll probably be away some months again. While there is a 1% of users that one can discuss with, the other 99% are too low level (even worse, they think it's you who is low level).


Don't go away, Antonio, I enjoy and learn loads from your posts. You have many great insights, and this site needs bright minds like yours. But having said that, I agree that there are quite a few dolts here, many who seem to enjoy picking pointless arguments and fights, and who say mean things here online that they'd probably not say in person. Stick around, man, be a shining light into this darkness of frustration we're all facing due to lack of speedy longevity progress.
  • Agree x 1

#30 saj87

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Argentina

Posted 19 December 2016 - 04:33 AM

Here is another issue (and probably an important one) for both the cost effective area as well as the social perspective: OVERPOPULATION.

 

Overpopulation is already a problem in some places (ie China), what would happen if infinite life thanks to CheatEngine cryonics is possible? Overpopulation, lack of resources (which, by the way we already have), etc. This of course will turn some people against cryonics. What do the proponents can say about this? Maybe "Well in a future we would be able to produce all the resources and we won't have any troubles with them". Another "We will", as if someone could really tell what the future will hold. We can not even say (like an user said above) that machines will take over production to the extent that we humans we will just enjoy life.

 

To me the thing is, despite wanting or not wanting cryonics (or be pro or against using it), are we at a place that we will have all those issues covered to harness the possibility of cryonics without it becoming a problem more than a solution? Should funding go first to solving the peripheral problems surrounding cryonics, problems that if given a solution would only be a good thing for the world and also a step foward in implementing this cryonic thing, for example? Or just go into giving money for cryonics, detaching it from things that bear a direct/indirect impact on how well it will turn out, and hoping all this to get solved some way?

 

 

Best regards.

Sebastian.

 

 

PS: It's funny that I came here to learn about nootropics and ask questions as a newbie and didn't get any replies on my threads but ended up discussing a topic in a thread I entered by chance.


Edited by saj87, 19 December 2016 - 04:38 AM.

  • dislike x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: cryonics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users