Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Alpha view of cryonics

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Alpha view of cryonics

    Lately I've been interested in cryonics, which is cryogenics applied to persons considered clinically dead.

    It seems cryonics attracts a certain type of individual. I'm curious as to whether this might be Alphas, or NTs, or just Alpha NT's or what. My wife is ESE and says she'd rather do full-body cryonics rather than be buried or burnt, but she doesn't like the idea of head-only cryonics.

    How do the Alphas here feel about cryonics? Any of you particularly opposed?

  2. #2
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,097
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd consider it.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  3. #3
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it's too likely that it won't work, and I don't mean just for theoretical reasons... also practical and political ones. We're trusting that how much stuff is going to remain preserved for two centuries? And would summoning up the equivalent of a caveman really be better in that future society than giving birth to another child?



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  4. #4
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,309
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find the idea to be interesting. But then I tend to favour novelty over feasibility. I would probably rather watch a movie with an ingenious twist yet far-fetched plot than one that is generally quite good but has its facts straight. Of course, this is just my point of view and everyone is entitled to their opinion... If you prefer things to be the other way around, more power to you.

    Jason
    Last edited by jason_m; 10-18-2009 at 10:23 AM.

  5. #5
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I find the idea to be interesting. But then I tend to favour novelty over feasibility. I would probably rather watch a movie with an ingenious twist yet far-fetched plot than one that is generally quite good but has its facts straight. Of course, this is just my point of view and everyone is entitled to their opinion... If you prefer things to be the other way around, more power to you.

    Jason
    I was initially attracted by the novelty, but I don't think it would have held my interest had it not had some element of feasability. I guess that's how I am with shows. I need a certain amount of weirdness to make it interesting, but am much more likely to keep watching if there seems to be something that ties things together in an internally consistent way.

  6. #6
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,309
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    I was initially attracted by the novelty, but I don't think it would have held my interest had it not had some element of feasability. I guess that's how I am with shows. I need a certain amount of weirdness to make it interesting, but am much more likely to keep watching if there seems to be something that ties things together in an internally consistent way.
    That's sort of what I mean. I'm interested in theoretical physics. One topic that has caught my interest is time travel. While time travel is impractical for the next (?) years and may not ever be feasible, it isn't inconsistent with the laws of physics. That's what makes it interesting - and if it wasn't possible at all, it wouldn't be interesting to me.

    Jason

  7. #7
    Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find the argument that it is a big risk to be rather empty, when you consider that the alternative is to die. You are essentially reducing your risk from 100% to some unknown fraction of 100%. Logically, this is the more conservative choice.

    Societal factors can be influenced during your lifetime. You can't control them, but you can have a positive influence of some kind on them. The goals most favorable to awakening from cryonics are a humanitarian, stable, technologically advanced society. Aren't most of us supposedly working towards that end anyway? Wouldn't it be a positive factor towards achieving these goals if everyone was signed up for cryonics?

    The choice between a baby and a caveman might seem like it should be the baby, until you realize that if you choose the caveman nobody has to die. A baby being unconcieved in the first place is the most moral outcome if the population is approaching its limit. (And what anthropologist or historian wouldn't jump at the chance to interview a real live caveman? You wouldn't destroy an antique vase, why would an antique human be any different?)

    Note that cryonics doesn't need to be just for the rich, and shouldn't be. Economies of scale are highly significant when it comes to cold storage. Thanks to basic geometry, a large containment vessel is far more efficient than a small one. If you increase the volume by 1000, you only increase surface area by 100, multiplying your efficiency by 10. So if one person can be stored at $100/month, a million people can be stored for $1/month. A billion people can be stored at $0.10 a month. With additional insulation (also dramatically more efficient on larger containers) the cost could be reduced even further.

  8. #8
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    TIM
    Yet to be determined
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    I find the argument that it is a big risk to be rather empty, when you consider that the alternative is to die. You are essentially reducing your risk from 100% to some unknown fraction of 100%. Logically, this is the more conservative choice.

    Societal factors can be influenced during your lifetime. You can't control them, but you can have a positive influence of some kind on them. The goals most favorable to awakening from cryonics are a humanitarian, stable, technologically advanced society. Aren't most of us supposedly working towards that end anyway? Wouldn't it be a positive factor towards achieving these goals if everyone was signed up for cryonics?

    The choice between a baby and a caveman might seem like it should be the baby, until you realize that if you choose the caveman nobody has to die. A baby being unconcieved in the first place is the most moral outcome if the population is approaching its limit. (And what anthropologist or historian wouldn't jump at the chance to interview a real live caveman? You wouldn't destroy an antique vase, why would an antique human be any different?)

    Note that cryonics doesn't need to be just for the rich, and shouldn't be. Economies of scale are highly significant when it comes to cold storage. Thanks to basic geometry, a large containment vessel is far more efficient than a small one. If you increase the volume by 1000, you only increase surface area by 100, multiplying your efficiency by 10. So if one person can be stored at $100/month, a million people can be stored for $1/month. A billion people can be stored at $0.10 a month. With additional insulation (also dramatically more efficient on larger containers) the cost could be reduced even further.
    I have no problem wiith it, besides the fear that the preserved bodies would be modified before being awakened so that they are easily suggestible or psychologically altered in a controlled/planned way that goes beyond medical necessity.
    The end is nigh

  9. #9
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    I have no problem wiith it, besides the fear that the preserved bodies would be modified before being awakened so that they are easily suggestible or psychologically altered in a controlled/planned way that goes beyond medical necessity.
    In this case I would consider it not the same person being brought back, but a vaguely similar person being created... which is sort of good.

    @Luke: I'm only worried about the expense; if that proves to not be significant, then I'm all for it. Thing is, it's no good pretending that a billion people will cost less to store than one person - they might not cost a billion time as much, but even if they only cost a million times as much total, that's quite a lot of expense. And if it lapses for a little while, it's all for nothing...

    The choice really isn't between 100% chance of dead and a miniscule chance at life, it's whether the price our descendants will pay is worth that miniscule chance at life (and, perhaps, whether our frozen existence will aid in advancing technology).



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •