What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?(bigthink.com)
bigthink.com
What happened to the first cryogenically frozen humans?
https://bigthink.com/the-future/cryonics-horror-stories/
598 comments
As the pharaohs already discovered, an immortality plan that depends on generations of low-paid underlings to maintain the dead elite's physical bodies is fundamentally flawed.
Fortunately, this statement is true for many plans of the elite :-)
I too upon hearing of a lunatic beating a frozen disembodied head to gallagheresque pulp with a blunt instrument can't help but smile sardonically if the resulting goop was formerly wealthier than me. Cool and normal. Power to the people bro. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
It's just like I always say: class warfare is a dish best served cryogenically frozen.
Either democracy fixes the wealth gap, or violence does. And democracy ain't lookin' too hot over the past ten years.
All must be equal, then we will be free! Use violence if necessary, it will leads us right into utopia.
https://i.redd.it/0h112jbq7js91.png
https://i.redd.it/0h112jbq7js91.png
Naive to think otherwise.
I hope your dream job is digging turnips out of the ground. Although given historical precedent you’d have a higher chance of winding up in the ground after a violent revolution.
[deleted]
Might have done the world a service. Immortality combined with winner takes all capitalism will just lead to an entrenched race of god emperors that won’t be removed ever except by society wide violence, basically like medieval kingdoms or dynastic empires. Market economies have helped limit that a bit(wealth inheritances still have a problem), but one of the unstated backstops of that system is that eventually the rich people in question do eventually die
> Immortality
If your body is not damaged enough. It would mean a lot of people would become really risk averse. If generalized it would fossilize a society really fast.
If your body is not damaged enough. It would mean a lot of people would become really risk averse. If generalized it would fossilize a society really fast.
You've repeated their point.
Uh? They already knew that which is why they tried to hide their tombs..
The builders of the pyramids tried to hide their tombs?
To my understanding, not a single pharaoh was found in a pyramid. Most were found in the Valley of the Kings.
It's also worth noting that there are no hieroglyphs inside the Great Pyramids (which are supposedly said to be tombs), when the Valley of the Kings (an actual tomb) was caked in them.
Also, the only written text depicting the construction of the Great Pyramids, that I could find, is (again, supposedly) the Famine Stele. I find it highly questionable that there is only one text that tells us of the most notable construction of ancient Egypt's entire existence, and one of the most notable buildings to date. And not a single hieroglyph amongst the Pyramids' vicinity says anything about it either.
It's also worth noting that there are no hieroglyphs inside the Great Pyramids (which are supposedly said to be tombs), when the Valley of the Kings (an actual tomb) was caked in them.
Also, the only written text depicting the construction of the Great Pyramids, that I could find, is (again, supposedly) the Famine Stele. I find it highly questionable that there is only one text that tells us of the most notable construction of ancient Egypt's entire existence, and one of the most notable buildings to date. And not a single hieroglyph amongst the Pyramids' vicinity says anything about it either.
Over 1000 years passed between the construction of the Great Pyramids and the time when the Valley of the Kings started to be in use. Of course decorative styles would be different!
It's not very surprising that we don't have a lot of texts about the construction of buildings that are 4,500 years old. The pyramids are incredibly ancient, and were ancient when later pharaohs tried to understand who built them.
For comparison, the Notre Dame of Paris is closer to our time than the Pyramids were to the pharaohs who built their tombs in the Valley of the Kings.
It's not very surprising that we don't have a lot of texts about the construction of buildings that are 4,500 years old. The pyramids are incredibly ancient, and were ancient when later pharaohs tried to understand who built them.
For comparison, the Notre Dame of Paris is closer to our time than the Pyramids were to the pharaohs who built their tombs in the Valley of the Kings.
One fact that blew my mind recently is that Cleopatra is closer to our present time than to the creation of the pyramids.
also note that Cleopatra was Greek, not Egyptian.
"Queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt from 51 to 30 BC, and its last active ruler. A member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, she was a descendant of its founder Ptolemy I Soter, a Macedonian Greek general and companion of Alexander the Great."
So, inasmuch as she thought about the pyramids, it was as a colonizer.
"Queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt from 51 to 30 BC, and its last active ruler. A member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, she was a descendant of its founder Ptolemy I Soter, a Macedonian Greek general and companion of Alexander the Great."
So, inasmuch as she thought about the pyramids, it was as a colonizer.
Do we only have that handful of examples from that period or are there other contemporaneous tombs that are not pyramids? Or smaller pyramids? The thing I always thought was so weird about the pyramids is why there are so few of them. You’d think there would be lots of smaller and medium size ones leading up to the cluster of big ones if they were in fact tombs.
There are in fact lots of pyramids and flatter proto-pyramids of various sizes! The total number is probably in the thousands, I believe.
Many have also been demolished in ancient times so the stones could be reused. For example the pyramid of Djedefre, son of Khufu who built the famous Great Pyramid. Instead of competing on size, the son made a smaller pyramid of more beautiful stone, but unfortunately the stone was too valuable to let stand and was repurposed over millennia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djedefre
Many have also been demolished in ancient times so the stones could be reused. For example the pyramid of Djedefre, son of Khufu who built the famous Great Pyramid. Instead of competing on size, the son made a smaller pyramid of more beautiful stone, but unfortunately the stone was too valuable to let stand and was repurposed over millennia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djedefre
There are over a hundred pyramids identified in Egypt of varying size and age, so depends on your definition of 'handful'. But to your question, there's the mastaba tomb starting from 3000bc or so, and it's flat toped and not a pyramid. Some scholars think the pyramid idea evolved from the mastaba (by stacking increasingly smaller mastabas on top of one another; see: Step Pyramid). There are lots of them.
The pyramids were very early on in Egyptian history, they had a couple thousand years to refine the approach.
I know some of the people involved. I expect that they are honest in saying that this never happened and that Johnson lied. Johnson himself later retracted the statements and his retraction said that he had no direct observation or evidence about the Ted Williams allegation; but this should probably not be regarded as significant evidence apart from my own claims about Alcor's probable honesty, since Alcor did in fact sue him and the book's author for libel.
The moment I realized cryonics made sense was when I was close to the moment of death. I am in my early 20s (followed for over10 years) and have been involved with cryonics for over 12 month now. I can recommend anyone to signup. It is very likely that AGI takes over from here but cryonics tries to preserve as much information as possible in this universe. I can only recommend watching Dr. Kendizorra from TomorrowBiostasis who is a real medical Doctor and opened just now in June their newly built Biostasis Facility near Zurich.
I'm more inclined to believe that boredom in a cryogenics facility would lead to a meeting of a head of Alcor Life Extension Foundation executive and a monkey wrench discussing the difference between expected and actual trajectory after application of force by one of the facility engineers than claims that such events never happened.
I'll echo this with my own story.
Up in Nederland CO, there is the body of Bredo Morstoel. Most years the town holds the Frozen Dead Guy Days festival to celebrate his cryopreservation, complete with ice cream, coffin races, and frozen salmon tossing. Yes really.
I've been on the tour of his cryonics 'facility'. It is a Tuff Shed on the side of a mountain next to a chemical toilet and a home-made above ground nuclear bunker (with sliding glass doors). The Morstoel family was ... eccentric. During the 'champagne' tour, you are allowed to help restock Bredo Morstoel's tomb with dry ice and see his coffin. The coffin is in very rough shape and you can easily see his corpse.
He is very dead and is never coming back.
He looks just like Otzi the Ice Man. There is a lot of mildew in the corners of his styrofoam and plywood cryo-chamber-thing. He is not fully attached together anymore. His caretakers are, honestly, paranoid occult isolated libertarians.
Bredo Morstoel's dream isn't ever going to come true. He is dead and rotten now.
Up in Nederland CO, there is the body of Bredo Morstoel. Most years the town holds the Frozen Dead Guy Days festival to celebrate his cryopreservation, complete with ice cream, coffin races, and frozen salmon tossing. Yes really.
I've been on the tour of his cryonics 'facility'. It is a Tuff Shed on the side of a mountain next to a chemical toilet and a home-made above ground nuclear bunker (with sliding glass doors). The Morstoel family was ... eccentric. During the 'champagne' tour, you are allowed to help restock Bredo Morstoel's tomb with dry ice and see his coffin. The coffin is in very rough shape and you can easily see his corpse.
He is very dead and is never coming back.
He looks just like Otzi the Ice Man. There is a lot of mildew in the corners of his styrofoam and plywood cryo-chamber-thing. He is not fully attached together anymore. His caretakers are, honestly, paranoid occult isolated libertarians.
Bredo Morstoel's dream isn't ever going to come true. He is dead and rotten now.
He's gonna be pissed off when he finds out about that.
I always confuse Ted William with Tad William. The Otherland novel had a great path to immortality
Never understood the quest for immortality. We are the children of our time. When our time passes, we will live as strangers in a strange land, drowning in the sea of nostalgia. Death will simply takes us back to where we came from before our birth. Don’t fear the reaper.
In case it's insightful, I've correspondingly never understood the common contentment with death. The world is an incredible place, and there's so much to experience and do. If I had the time there's hundreds of careers I could spend a lifetime in each trying to develop mastery. I think I could live a thousand lives with the people I care about and not be done. I've had to choose one life, and it's a nice one, but if it wasn't for some limit forced upon me, if it was really my choice, then there's a lot more I'd like to do.
I suspect in hundreds or thousands of years we'll look back at age-related death culturally the same way we look at infant mortality during the medieval ages: commonly accepted as part of life at the time, but unnecessary and completely solvable in retrospective.
I think fear is the wrong word per-say. If it's something I can't change, that's fine. But if there's an avenue to change it, even if unlikely, why not try?
I suspect in hundreds or thousands of years we'll look back at age-related death culturally the same way we look at infant mortality during the medieval ages: commonly accepted as part of life at the time, but unnecessary and completely solvable in retrospective.
I think fear is the wrong word per-say. If it's something I can't change, that's fine. But if there's an avenue to change it, even if unlikely, why not try?
I'm absolutely shocked that more money and time is not spent researching how to cure death by aging. (Note that for those who discuss this semi-regularly, that's understood to be very different than seeking a cure for any particular age related disease, which usually we attempt to address when it's too late.). There are groups like https://www.levf.org/ doing some early work like Robust Mouse Rejuvenation (in mid-life for mice) to try to figure out how to help us all live much longer. https://www.levf.org/projects/robust-mouse-rejuvenation-stud...
> I'm absolutely shocked that more money and time is not spent researching how to cure death by aging.
Faced with their own mortality, a bunch of aging billionaires and multimillionaires tend to pour money into longevity research. I'd be very upset if governments increased spending on fighting senescence today, instead of lower-hanging fruit .
Faced with their own mortality, a bunch of aging billionaires and multimillionaires tend to pour money into longevity research. I'd be very upset if governments increased spending on fighting senescence today, instead of lower-hanging fruit .
When Elon was asked why longetivity research didn't pick his interest as worthy of an investment, he said:
>It is important for us to die because most of the time people don't change their mind, they just die. If you live forever, we might become a very ossified society where new ideas cannot succeed.
>It is important for us to die because most of the time people don't change their mind, they just die. If you live forever, we might become a very ossified society where new ideas cannot succeed.
The opposite could also be true though. Longer lifespans permit more people gaining education, working more years, saving more money with a longer term vision, and rising to be a new economic upper class. Short lifespans make that a very difficult to coordinate multi generational project.
There are also solutions like term limits, or generational tenure limits or something that could help reduce any negative effects without needing to continue unnecessary loss of life.
There are also solutions like term limits, or generational tenure limits or something that could help reduce any negative effects without needing to continue unnecessary loss of life.
I'm all for longetivity, but I admit what he said has substance.
It's not (only) about old people having short term vision/not enough time for reeducation.
25 or 30 year old people are already very often set in stone and unable to change their views and they have most of their life ahead of them.
It's not (only) about old people having short term vision/not enough time for reeducation.
25 or 30 year old people are already very often set in stone and unable to change their views and they have most of their life ahead of them.
Why not die at 30 then in the spirit of societal progress?
This argument is philosophical i.e. worthless. We will actually have to win with death to answer the question if it's good or not. It's not something you can figure out without doing it.
This argument is philosophical i.e. worthless. We will actually have to win with death to answer the question if it's good or not. It's not something you can figure out without doing it.
Raising children (and later, grandchildren) is the obvious answer.
Why not grand-grand-children? Current point looks like optimum, but it's really arbitrary and imposed only by external constraint of length of human life.
We could have blinking red lights in our palms for that occasion
Well, Elon is working on building tunnels and (maze) cars, I guess if Mars doesn't work out, we can have Logan's Run.
I generally agree with you, except for the view on class mobility. If we defeat aging altogether, I strongly suspect society to stratify aggressively between those that can afford it and those who can't, and worse, a class of immortal wealth to form. Today, maintaining generational wealth requires A) balancing relatively small family sizes to keep the exponential growth of family members relatively inline with the exponential growth of well-managed wealth against dying off because no one had kids and B) a mostly continuous line of responsible investors. In a future where dying of old age isn't a problem, A becomes much easier and B) is eliminated entirely. It's all the problems of generational wealth with none of the saving graces.
On the whole I think it's worth it, but it will definitely exasperate the problems already inherent to our economic system.
On the whole I think it's worth it, but it will definitely exasperate the problems already inherent to our economic system.
Or alternatively, a stratum of leadership class who actually worry about problems coming 100 years down the line because they fully expect to be effected by them.
[deleted]
Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time
I'm just confused about why he didn't followed his train of thought further (i.e. first principles thinking) on that. As I see it, people don't change their mind mainly for two reasons. One is that no compelling new information reaches them, and the other is that as people age, they have to be more conservative on their own diminishing energy, which affects them in multiple ways (avoiding the challenge of their current beliefs, which can be tiresome and not that necessary compared to someone younger that has to find out more about the world in order to grow and gain competence; or increasingly limiting the circle of people that is one's idea exchange medium, which can devolve into something where politeness becomes more important than other things; etc.), then there is just the custom of leaving the elderly be as their change is not worth the cost. (On the last one it's not only the elderly, as many aspects that people give up on attempts to "fix" each other starting from much earlier ages.) Now, if only that aging and age related energy decay could be solved, there would be an entirely new game, looking for a new homeostasis! ...or maybe one has to be young enough to be curious enough about something like this?
Maybe old people living longer would make us finally create some mechanisms of power rotation instead of just patiently waiting for old power to die.
Mechanism that could be applied way earlier than old ossified out of touch rulers die now. And applied more merit based.
Mechanism that could be applied way earlier than old ossified out of touch rulers die now. And applied more merit based.
Why would we make such a mechanism instead of the currently entrenched powers just further solidifying their hold on society?
Out of necessity? I know we live in times when elites seem secure. But it wasn't always so and it won't be always so.
It is so right now only because of how good modern common people have. But it's going away now. And if security of elites depend of well being of others it's sort of self-regulating system albeit way too slowly.
There's also pressure from the other side. The longer living elites means it will get crowded at the top, so elites might be open to some means of culling their numbers.
It is so right now only because of how good modern common people have. But it's going away now. And if security of elites depend of well being of others it's sort of self-regulating system albeit way too slowly.
There's also pressure from the other side. The longer living elites means it will get crowded at the top, so elites might be open to some means of culling their numbers.
I'd argue he doesn't care about ageing because he's 51.
What till he's 75 and see if he still holds that view.
What till he's 75 and see if he still holds that view.
Wonder how long he'll stick to that line. I can almost see that Twitter poll he'd currently use to rationalize the change of mind: "Should I try to not die? [ ] yes [ ] no"
But for the time being, nice to see him stating something I don't disagree with.
But for the time being, nice to see him stating something I don't disagree with.
This wisdom was already the topic of cartoons, books and movies 30+ years ago. If you attach 'Elon Musk' to a quote it immediately becomes relevant to some gullible people, it's truly amazing.
To add some good mood, I stole a comment from reddit [1] which describes one of millions of media dealing with this question:
> In The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series, immortality is fine if you're born that way. It's only if you accidentally obtain it after an accident with a few rubber bands, a liquid lunch, and a particle accelerator is it a bad thing that you are not equipped to deal with and so decide to insult everyone in the universe in alphabetical order.
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/tpzb4e/immortality_i...
To add some good mood, I stole a comment from reddit [1] which describes one of millions of media dealing with this question:
> In The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series, immortality is fine if you're born that way. It's only if you accidentally obtain it after an accident with a few rubber bands, a liquid lunch, and a particle accelerator is it a bad thing that you are not equipped to deal with and so decide to insult everyone in the universe in alphabetical order.
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/tpzb4e/immortality_i...
1. The statement you quote is not the same idea.
2. Even if it was, it doesn't make the "wisdom" any less relevant. There's no shortage of relevant wisdom in Douglas Adams' writing.
3. I intentionally quoted Elon specifically, because it is a relevant reply to the parent comment about billionaires pouring money to longevity research.
2. Even if it was, it doesn't make the "wisdom" any less relevant. There's no shortage of relevant wisdom in Douglas Adams' writing.
3. I intentionally quoted Elon specifically, because it is a relevant reply to the parent comment about billionaires pouring money to longevity research.
This conversation reminds me of "The Elflord and the Mayfly":
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/353
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/353
It'll be interesting to see if he holds that view over the longer term.
There’s always a tweet
I hope he changes his mind about Twitter soon
What lower hanging fruit are governments currently spending on? Giant militaries? Healthcare for those last few months of life?
> What lower hanging fruit are governments currently spending on?
I meant what lower hanging fruits governments ought to spend on. However, since you asked, here are some of the things governments are currently spending on, but could bear improvement: eradicating preventable diseases, ensuring kids get good nutrition, better tracking, and hopefully prevention of e. coli/salmonella outbreaks, funding basic research into improving outcomes for patients, reducing profiteering off the products of publicly-funded research, medical pricing transparency, better organ donor policies (universal opt-out)
I meant what lower hanging fruits governments ought to spend on. However, since you asked, here are some of the things governments are currently spending on, but could bear improvement: eradicating preventable diseases, ensuring kids get good nutrition, better tracking, and hopefully prevention of e. coli/salmonella outbreaks, funding basic research into improving outcomes for patients, reducing profiteering off the products of publicly-funded research, medical pricing transparency, better organ donor policies (universal opt-out)
Those things are nice, but individually they each only have an expected value of maybe a couple of extra years of living time. Contrast that to curing ageing that would put that number in the hundreds or thousands.
Honestly I'm not sure those numbers are compelling enough.
We, like, know how to solve some of those other problems. Sure, there's politics and bureaucracy and complications and the opportunity for corruption, but you can assign a p close to 1 we could get it done in an arbitrary timeframe.
Meanwhile, what's the probability that dumping a particular amount of money into aging is going to pay off? Even taking a thousand years you need a p>0.002 to make it worth diverting money from the safe bet of getting a couple of years off the other things.
We, like, know how to solve some of those other problems. Sure, there's politics and bureaucracy and complications and the opportunity for corruption, but you can assign a p close to 1 we could get it done in an arbitrary timeframe.
Meanwhile, what's the probability that dumping a particular amount of money into aging is going to pay off? Even taking a thousand years you need a p>0.002 to make it worth diverting money from the safe bet of getting a couple of years off the other things.
Contrast that to mind uploads and humans become practically immortal with an infinite expected value - but I don't want the governments spending any money on that either at this point in time, before the human race addresses certain structural issues.
This is a (common) fallacy that could be applied to any funding or focus decision. It reduces to "Why focus on X when Y is more important?". You could use your same examples here as an argument for why not to support space exploration, or environmental conservation, for example.
Government budgets are finite: prioritization is not a fallacy but comes built-in, as anyone who has written a grant application knows.
We have a whole host of societal functions that are not geared to cope with longevity: including social security plus the associated tax-rates
We have a whole host of societal functions that are not geared to cope with longevity: including social security plus the associated tax-rates
You only need social security if you’re unable to work. If we increase healthspan to the point that you can maintain the physical condition of a 30 year old indefinitely then you are able to pull your own weight.
Do you think you could work for 200 years straight? I suspect that'd be disastrous to mental health. Society will need to figure out PTO under the new regime as well, or additional research will need to be undertaken just so our minds can keep up with our foerever-young bodies.
I don't follow your social security point; could you please explain? Thank you.
Medical & aged care social security costs are tied to deaths of recipients: the bigger the delta between retirement and death,the greater the cost. If the average lifespan grows rapidly, current social security funding will become insolvent, requiring taxes to be raised and/or retirement age to bw raided to leep the current average delta: neither option will be popular with the electorate.
I think you misunderstand the intent behind longevity research and goals: It's to eliminate the senescence period, or to slow everything down if unable to achieve that.
Curing age related diseases is permanent fix, and makes curing any low hanging fruits trivial.
Comprehensive worldwide healthcare plan to successfully fight pandemic events comes to my mind.
PS: Oh sorry I understood that as a question of what would be useful, not what is actually spent.
PS: Oh sorry I understood that as a question of what would be useful, not what is actually spent.
Not sure about anyone else but if I was a billionaire researching it I certainly wouldn’t tell anyone if possible.
Seems like some are fairly open about it. I recall hearing about some trying blood transfusions for example.
One shouldn't put money into "curing death by aging" without fixing society first; while birth rates exceed death rates, the world fills up and drains natural resources etc etc. There's a ton of problems that need resolving if living longer is to be a thing.
Basically all developed countries already have birth rates below the replacement rate. In the US each women on average gives birth to 1.64 children, in Germany there it's 1.5 per women, in Japan 1.33 and in Korea 0.84. To keep population constant without immigration, the average women would have to give birth to slightly above 2 children.
The only reason population numbers aren't collapsing is immigration, but that comes with its own issues. Extending live expectency and productive lifetime isn't that crazy (if we can get a handle on our rising living standards and resource consumption).
https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm
The only reason population numbers aren't collapsing is immigration, but that comes with its own issues. Extending live expectency and productive lifetime isn't that crazy (if we can get a handle on our rising living standards and resource consumption).
https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm
The main reason to attempt to stop aging is to prevent other illnesses from taking effect.
People who are physically young are at a much lower risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, Type II diabetes/Alzheimer's, etc. Stopping/reversing the aging process kind of fixes the root cause of a lot of those diseases.
We're probably not far off from that reality, either. Then we move onto more controversial questions, e.g. Do physically healthy people have the right to end their own lives? Not everyone want to live to be 300 years old, especially those who have lost most of their family and friends over those years.
People who are physically young are at a much lower risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, Type II diabetes/Alzheimer's, etc. Stopping/reversing the aging process kind of fixes the root cause of a lot of those diseases.
We're probably not far off from that reality, either. Then we move onto more controversial questions, e.g. Do physically healthy people have the right to end their own lives? Not everyone want to live to be 300 years old, especially those who have lost most of their family and friends over those years.
I've never understood the "not wanting to live 300 years" sentiment.
I've experienced extreme loss, but continue to expreience new connections, knowledge, etc. There's simply no small limit to what a human can experience, and hundreds of years is paltry compared to when it would take to even be on the verge of boredom/emptiness, if such a verge could actually ever be reached.
I've experienced extreme loss, but continue to expreience new connections, knowledge, etc. There's simply no small limit to what a human can experience, and hundreds of years is paltry compared to when it would take to even be on the verge of boredom/emptiness, if such a verge could actually ever be reached.
The bigger issue isn't population here but rather than if older folks live not simply longer but more productive lives that those in the top tiers will always be seen as more valuable therefore more employable. We're not just taking 1%ers here, we're talking the top 20% of folks becoming a permanent worker's aristocracy that gets to lord over the youngin's forever. I don't like the prospect of that being 42 myself. It just means that younger folks will always be poor, shutout, and forever at the margins of such a hypothetical society. Life extension in this context should only be allowed if we break down the barriers of a potential gerontocracy.
Law generally follows technological advancement, if you try to do it the other way you’ll end up passing laws for things that will never happen.
If aging is cured then the elderly could be fully productive.
At the cost of less elderly who'll miss out on being reproductive die to all the spots already being taken. Achieving immortality would be robbing from your descendants what your ancestors bestowed.
I was responding to a specific point to which your response seems irrelevant.
If my kids, or their kids, or their kids, etc. ever wanted me to die in order to "bestow" them with something...well, too bad. I wish my grandparents, and their parents, etc. were alive today.
If my kids, or their kids, or their kids, etc. ever wanted me to die in order to "bestow" them with something...well, too bad. I wish my grandparents, and their parents, etc. were alive today.
Space on earth is finite. And even if add more hypotheticals like us becoming an interstellar species (actually I'd wager that's less unlikely than overcoming aging), in absence of aging exponential breeding would eventually outpace even the fastest space frontier colonization imaginable.
About that exponential breeding thing, I’ve got some bad news. You’d better sit down…
Yeah, and if you go from 100 year lifespan to 300 years and survive the societal collapse, would you be happy then? What about in 300 years?
Eventually all the atoms we know and love will decay and "disappear."
Eventually all the atoms we know and love will decay and "disappear."
Give me a few million years of life and I'll still have billions more to think about what to do in the event of a heat death of the universe.
Not aging is not the same as being invincible. There would still be turn over. You can also legislate things like mandatory retirement from a position so that others get a chance to move up. The legal aspects of longevity are easy to solve compared to the task of curing aging.
Here's a little thought experiment: when a company has layoffs, do more young people or more old people get the axe?
If we get to a place where people can live healthy lives until they are 300 years old, why do you think someone who finished college 40 years ago will be more valuable for a company than a fresh graduate? Because nowadays we have exactly this setup minus the 300 year lifespan, and often times the company is happy to let go of the senior guy.
If we get to a place where people can live healthy lives until they are 300 years old, why do you think someone who finished college 40 years ago will be more valuable for a company than a fresh graduate? Because nowadays we have exactly this setup minus the 300 year lifespan, and often times the company is happy to let go of the senior guy.
So the solution is to have the equivalent of a mass genocide in old people? I would much, much, much rather be alive in a fucked up world than dead in a nice world.
> I would much, much, much rather be alive in a fucked up world than dead in a nice world.
You don't know that. You think that is the case, but (I) you don't know what death is like, so you cannot realistically claim it is worse than anything (II) until you qualify 'fucked up' then this is a pointless claim, since your version of 'fucked up' may not be that bad compared to what is in the realm of possibility.
You don't know that. You think that is the case, but (I) you don't know what death is like, so you cannot realistically claim it is worse than anything (II) until you qualify 'fucked up' then this is a pointless claim, since your version of 'fucked up' may not be that bad compared to what is in the realm of possibility.
Death is worse, we do know that - outside of religious afterlifes, having continued brain patterns is preferable to non-existence.
It's incredibly more likely that continued existence will be no worse than the world today, which is quite nice. Even if it becomes torturous existence beats non-existence.
It's incredibly more likely that continued existence will be no worse than the world today, which is quite nice. Even if it becomes torturous existence beats non-existence.
Aubrey de Grey is the only person I'm aware of who seems to be considering the disease of aging seriously and passionately. He seems to be single handedly pushing the issue forward with multiple foundations and papers.
I suppose there are others but like you I don't understand why there isn't more focus and media attention on the root causes of aging, the ultimate killer.
I suppose there are others but like you I don't understand why there isn't more focus and media attention on the root causes of aging, the ultimate killer.
There are now plenty of scientists pushing for aging to be classified as a disease, rather an inevitability. It is becoming much more mainstream and has seen lots of money flowing to it.
A recent article mentioned how leprosy can regenerate livers or maybe other organs, nerves, vessels etc. It does it so it can infect it again. Pretty close to human regeneration if the kinks are worked out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-63626239
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-63626239
There's a decent amount of research but it's hard!
Most of it is on fruit flies and mice then takes a life time to test on humans!
What we do know is that being fit and exercising with some semblance of healthy eating helps people live a lot longer. But no one wants to do it.
Most of it is on fruit flies and mice then takes a life time to test on humans!
What we do know is that being fit and exercising with some semblance of healthy eating helps people live a lot longer. But no one wants to do it.
> What we do know is that being fit and exercising with some semblance of healthy eating helps people live a lot longer.
No, abstaining from things like alcohol and smoking mostly does that.
Exercise and healthy eating markedly improves quality of life at old age, but it doesn’t extend it by huge amounts.
No, abstaining from things like alcohol and smoking mostly does that.
Exercise and healthy eating markedly improves quality of life at old age, but it doesn’t extend it by huge amounts.
See people don't want to even believe healthy eating and exercise long life expectancy!
For what it's worth obesity accounts for about 5-10 year shortening. Not dissimilar to smoking.
For what it's worth obesity accounts for about 5-10 year shortening. Not dissimilar to smoking.
Obesity is something else than median ( = control group) living.
Sport is good for you. Extreme sports markedly cuts short average life expectancy and late quality of life. With your logic, that makes sports bad.
Edit: actually, I guess it depends on where you live. In America, obesity probably is the median..
Sport is good for you. Extreme sports markedly cuts short average life expectancy and late quality of life. With your logic, that makes sports bad.
Edit: actually, I guess it depends on where you live. In America, obesity probably is the median..
I'm not trying to invent some new science here. Just what I've read in journals.[0]
There is this weird defense of obesity and being sedentary in western culture it's just inexplicable.
Interestingly we've just had the first case of manslaughter by obesity trial going on in the UK [1]. The mum has admitted manslaughter the dad is going to trial. Over death of their 16yo girl.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-018-0210-2
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64045049.amp
There is this weird defense of obesity and being sedentary in western culture it's just inexplicable.
Interestingly we've just had the first case of manslaughter by obesity trial going on in the UK [1]. The mum has admitted manslaughter the dad is going to trial. Over death of their 16yo girl.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-018-0210-2
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64045049.amp
You’re either misreading or strawmanning. I’m not defending obesity. I’m saying a person living a what one would consider ‘neutral’ lifestyle will not live massive amounts shorter than someone living very healthy. They’ll just have a much lower quality of life the last 15-20 years.
Also comparing exercise to extreme sports is a bit absurd.
That was the entire point..
Yeah, I'd just rather have medicine make my finite life less painful thanks without the need for opioids (not saying being a bit stone is bad, just that too much will make life not worth living). Like being able to still walk around without a cane and clean and dress myself by the end would be nice. Not asking for olympic athlete level capability, just decent mobility with not much pain or senility.
That’s actually the point of most longevity research. Figuring out how to keep people healthy for as long as possible. That may eventually lead to effective immortality but the first step is the prevent senescence.
I would actively pay to fight such a movement. The world is full, yes it can be fuller but we are seriously cracking whole ecosystem and one of main reason is simply the amount of people living on this planet. If you prolong life say 2x it means Earth has 2x the population long term just due to this. Lets focus on serious issues hindering our growth as a race and not some vanity fears of few rich and powerful who think they are oh-so-special while they are not.
Death is good on so many levels - equalizer that removes most horrible tyrants like Stalin who would easily burn whole world just to be immortal and stay on top. If you are a normal decent person you can't even comprehend mindset of such sociopaths and their eternal greed. Don't think there are few people like that in a generation, rather few millions, just with fewer options.
Death also makes whole nations eventually forget wrongs on the past, otherwise we would still be hating mongols and huns and romans and swedes and british and slavers and germans as nazis etc. If for nothing else, just to remove threat of semi-eternal planetary dictator death is great.
My grandparents from my dads side both died few months ago aged 94 and 95. They saw all their friends, neighbors and colleagues die decades ago, and they were witnessing same starting to happen to kids of those close people. They were both depressed from this, gradual loss of everything that has any long term meaning plus decline of everything health-related. It sucks to be the last living guy from say group of friends, you think you would find tons of solace in the fact you are still alive but thats not how reality on the ground looks like. People just wait for death to come and many prefer it comes soon.
Death is good on so many levels - equalizer that removes most horrible tyrants like Stalin who would easily burn whole world just to be immortal and stay on top. If you are a normal decent person you can't even comprehend mindset of such sociopaths and their eternal greed. Don't think there are few people like that in a generation, rather few millions, just with fewer options.
Death also makes whole nations eventually forget wrongs on the past, otherwise we would still be hating mongols and huns and romans and swedes and british and slavers and germans as nazis etc. If for nothing else, just to remove threat of semi-eternal planetary dictator death is great.
My grandparents from my dads side both died few months ago aged 94 and 95. They saw all their friends, neighbors and colleagues die decades ago, and they were witnessing same starting to happen to kids of those close people. They were both depressed from this, gradual loss of everything that has any long term meaning plus decline of everything health-related. It sucks to be the last living guy from say group of friends, you think you would find tons of solace in the fact you are still alive but thats not how reality on the ground looks like. People just wait for death to come and many prefer it comes soon.
You cite "Stalin bad" but Stalin only killed about 40,000/week for 30 years. You're talking of personally paying to support the deaths of everyone at the current world-wide all-cause death rate of 1,000,000/week, forever. Surely in some way that makes your plans infinitely worse than Stalin's? Imagine all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, all the veil of mourning and tears, the darkness your plans will cloud the surface of the Earth with. All the sobbing parents, grieving siblings, depressed grandparents and grandchildren.
All because you don't want to bother inventing an orbital ring or an arcology tower or society where suicide by choice is the accepted way out.
> "removes most horrible tyrants like Stalin"
"we" could still kill him; immortal or ageless doesn't necessarily mean invincible.
All because you don't want to bother inventing an orbital ring or an arcology tower or society where suicide by choice is the accepted way out.
> "removes most horrible tyrants like Stalin"
"we" could still kill him; immortal or ageless doesn't necessarily mean invincible.
Exactly - this obsession with planets it toxic, you see it all the time. People just consider Earth as the only available finite resource and thus take some problems as unsolvable and a lot of suffering as normal and unavoidable.
All the while the are almost endless resources and options how to solve these issues waiting in the solar system!
Its like hauling old people to the mountains to die because your village can't support them. We got over that & we should should get over our current terrestrial problems as well by moving on and expanding out of our cradle.
All the while the are almost endless resources and options how to solve these issues waiting in the solar system!
Its like hauling old people to the mountains to die because your village can't support them. We got over that & we should should get over our current terrestrial problems as well by moving on and expanding out of our cradle.
The energy needed to move millions to a different planet is enormous with current physics. So, until you solve that, the obsession with Earth is not toxic, it's realistic.
It's not enormous, it's just significant compared to our current production/use, but here's the good news: there's more than enough energy for that available off planet. There's absurd amounts of energy available everywhere around us.
Consider: it seems that we should be able to support a technological civilization of billions of people on renewable energy alone. That means literally on a fraction of the sunlight that Earth captures. Now, Sun isn't focusing on Earth, it's an omnidirectional emitter. Which means there's some 74 000 times more energy than Earth is receiving from the Sun available just in Earth's orbital band alone.
Fortunately, space-related energy problems seem like they'll be solving themselves, in lock step with increased space capabilities.
Consider: it seems that we should be able to support a technological civilization of billions of people on renewable energy alone. That means literally on a fraction of the sunlight that Earth captures. Now, Sun isn't focusing on Earth, it's an omnidirectional emitter. Which means there's some 74 000 times more energy than Earth is receiving from the Sun available just in Earth's orbital band alone.
Fortunately, space-related energy problems seem like they'll be solving themselves, in lock step with increased space capabilities.
The Sun radiates about 400 trillion trillion Watts in all directions, and only a couple of billionths of it crosses Earth. There's a lot more radiant energy spreading out into the void waiting to be Dyson Swarmed.
There's no way we're going to rocket launch billions to Mars, and there isn't another planet worth living on without unreasonable amounts of energy for Terraforming. But we are capable of rebuilding the atoms of Earth into much larger living environments - there are so many atoms it wouldn't mean destroying the Earth to do it. A Space Elevator doesn't need diamond nanowire, it could be built with enough steel chain. An orbital ring around the Equator would be enormous and would take approximately nothing of the Earth's matter to construct.
Isaac Arthur's YouTube channel is full of speculation and plans for all kinds of possible or nearly-possible futures, as well as more distant dreams. e.g. the playlists:
- "The future of Energy, Industry and Agriculture" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChTJHEdf6yM&list=PLIIOUpOge0...
- "Earth v2.0" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6mRjsxQQJE&list=PLIIOUpOge0...
- "Outward Bound" - near-Earth space exploration and living - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFOBoy2MZ8&list=PLIIOUpOge0...
- "Visions of Earth" - arcologies, megacities, ecumenopolises, geoengineering, weather control - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqKQ94DtS54&list=PLIIOUpOge0...
And somewhere in there, megastructures such as Dyson Spheres, ringworlds, etc.
There's no way we're going to rocket launch billions to Mars, and there isn't another planet worth living on without unreasonable amounts of energy for Terraforming. But we are capable of rebuilding the atoms of Earth into much larger living environments - there are so many atoms it wouldn't mean destroying the Earth to do it. A Space Elevator doesn't need diamond nanowire, it could be built with enough steel chain. An orbital ring around the Equator would be enormous and would take approximately nothing of the Earth's matter to construct.
Isaac Arthur's YouTube channel is full of speculation and plans for all kinds of possible or nearly-possible futures, as well as more distant dreams. e.g. the playlists:
- "The future of Energy, Industry and Agriculture" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChTJHEdf6yM&list=PLIIOUpOge0...
- "Earth v2.0" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6mRjsxQQJE&list=PLIIOUpOge0...
- "Outward Bound" - near-Earth space exploration and living - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmFOBoy2MZ8&list=PLIIOUpOge0...
- "Visions of Earth" - arcologies, megacities, ecumenopolises, geoengineering, weather control - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqKQ94DtS54&list=PLIIOUpOge0...
And somewhere in there, megastructures such as Dyson Spheres, ringworlds, etc.
This is what being a supervillain feels like from the inside.
You should check out Hans Rosling's talk on overpopulation.
Imagine if they succeeded. Instant breakdown of society. So by induction, perhaps someone makes sure they don't.
> So by induction, perhaps someone makes sure they don't.
Yikes! That's a scary conspiracy theory!
(Note that I don't agree it would cause a breakdown in society.)
Yikes! That's a scary conspiracy theory!
(Note that I don't agree it would cause a breakdown in society.)
It doesn't seem to be happening that way. Current research doesn't seem to aim at indefinite life extension but at some decades more of healthy life. The current goal of most companies and foundations is to make 90 the new 50. So it seems that it will happen gradually.
> Imagine if they succeeded. Instant breakdown of society. So by induction, perhaps someone makes sure they don't.
My comment comes across as semantic nitpicking, but I don't mean it that way; I just think I'm not understanding what you mean by reasoning "by induction" here.
I am a mathematician, so am most familiar with induction in its technical mathematical sense, which I assume isn't what you mean. More generally, my dictionary says that induction is "the inference of a general law from particular instances". For that to be what you mean here, you would need to infer that "someone makes sure they don't" (meaning, I assume, "they don't succeed in curing death by aging") in general from the fact that someone has done so in particular cases. Is that what you meant? If so, who and when? Or is my dictionary wrong, or are you using some other sense of 'induction'?
My comment comes across as semantic nitpicking, but I don't mean it that way; I just think I'm not understanding what you mean by reasoning "by induction" here.
I am a mathematician, so am most familiar with induction in its technical mathematical sense, which I assume isn't what you mean. More generally, my dictionary says that induction is "the inference of a general law from particular instances". For that to be what you mean here, you would need to infer that "someone makes sure they don't" (meaning, I assume, "they don't succeed in curing death by aging") in general from the fact that someone has done so in particular cases. Is that what you meant? If so, who and when? Or is my dictionary wrong, or are you using some other sense of 'induction'?
Society won't break down. Societies of the high longevity future are almost certain to look back at the current age and balk in confusion at the number of people afraid of living longer the same way we balk at things like human sacrifice.
It's a form of Stockholm syndrome and a coping mechanism against immense, inescapable pain. It's the 4th F of trauma coping mechanisms: Fight, Flight, Freeze, Fawn.
When something is very painful and inescapable you can: Fight it, run away from it (not talk about it, ignore it, pretend it's not there or won't happen, mentally distract away from it with constant stimulation), freeze (dissociate, numbness, ie shut down emotions, be stoic, feel nothing or little) or fawn (appease, please, embrace the pain in order to feel a sense of control over it, believe it's good, you want it or is positive in some way, thereby releasing yourself from the torment of powerlessness+pain).
When something is very painful and inescapable you can: Fight it, run away from it (not talk about it, ignore it, pretend it's not there or won't happen, mentally distract away from it with constant stimulation), freeze (dissociate, numbness, ie shut down emotions, be stoic, feel nothing or little) or fawn (appease, please, embrace the pain in order to feel a sense of control over it, believe it's good, you want it or is positive in some way, thereby releasing yourself from the torment of powerlessness+pain).
I've lived a modern day life of comfort, opportunities and experiences unimaginable compared to even my grandparents (all deceased now). I've been to places and had opportunities to try things which they never did. Compared to my grandma who cooked during food rationing and had to save sugar rations to make a cake, who lived a frugal life of 'make do and mend', I have the spare money and first world surroundings to indulge any ordinary luxury[1] on a whim - meal at a restaurant, new clothes, ticket to a show, buy a household goods item or entertaining gadget, holiday abroad in a hotel on a couple of day's notice, all no problem. I've travelled more than she ever did, owned more things than she ever did, experienced many kinds of novelty and variety that she never did.
Is that enough? Can I go now? Isn't that enough? I still have possibly 3-4 decades of life left to average life expectancy, and for what - to grind through more experiences? Even though I've already had vastly more than most humans who ever lived? I have no great purpose to achieve, there's nothing I can do which millions of others can't do. The main reason to go on living is because dying would hurt others unnecessarily. Brute forcing through everything-there-is-to-experience is not an enticing vision for the future at all, it's a grind.
> "but if it wasn't for some limit forced upon me, if it was really my choice, then there's a lot more I'd like to do."
It seems common that people who become rich enough to do anything end up depressed doing nothing. Taking the forcing function out seems to make people miserable rather than happy. Even people who said beforehand that they had lots they'd like to do often seem to lose motivation to actually do any of it.
[1] there's a phrase.
Is that enough? Can I go now? Isn't that enough? I still have possibly 3-4 decades of life left to average life expectancy, and for what - to grind through more experiences? Even though I've already had vastly more than most humans who ever lived? I have no great purpose to achieve, there's nothing I can do which millions of others can't do. The main reason to go on living is because dying would hurt others unnecessarily. Brute forcing through everything-there-is-to-experience is not an enticing vision for the future at all, it's a grind.
> "but if it wasn't for some limit forced upon me, if it was really my choice, then there's a lot more I'd like to do."
It seems common that people who become rich enough to do anything end up depressed doing nothing. Taking the forcing function out seems to make people miserable rather than happy. Even people who said beforehand that they had lots they'd like to do often seem to lose motivation to actually do any of it.
[1] there's a phrase.
> Brute forcing through everything-there-is-to-experience is not an enticing vision for the future at all, it's a grind.
Speak for yourself, but please don't confuse that for a good argument for the death of others with a different perspective. (I don't think longevity advocates generally want to prevent suicide or force people to live forever if they don't want to.)
Speak for yourself, but please don't confuse that for a good argument for the death of others with a different perspective. (I don't think longevity advocates generally want to prevent suicide or force people to live forever if they don't want to.)
> "Speak for yourself"
Whom do you think I am speaking for?
> "please don't confuse that for a good argument for the death of others with a different perspective."
"I want everything" is a youthful perspective that adults grow out of by gaining things and realising that drowning in endless things isn't happiness, it's a hoarding disorder. People with a PetaByte storage array of media aren't the happiest film watchers on the planet, people with a garage full of Lamborghinis aren't the best drivers or the happiest people, Billionaires aren't satisfied with 'enough' money. Indeed, the opposite as one anecdote in this thread commented - a child with nothing who gets an orange is happy; a child with 9 consoles who gets a 10th console and wants an 11th, isn't happy. Saying "I want 1000000 consoles" seems more cringeworthy than convincing. "I want a career" "I want ten careers!" "I want a pony" "I want a hundred lifetimes of pony ownership!". "I want to master an instrument" "I want to master infinity instruments!". Ok mr oneupper. But it makes no difference whether "you" lived all those lives you can't remember, or someone else did. No difference at all. In fact, you may as well assume that other people are you, and their lives are ones you lived and can no longer remember. Everything becomes much simpler and it makes just as much sense.
> "I don't think longevity advocates generally want to prevent suicide or force people to live forever if they don't want to."
I suspect they are against suicide; why would someone who promotes longevity so much also be pro-dying-early? I also suspect one of the reasons our societies are against suicide is because workers can't be allowed an easy escape from their suffering. The kind of people who are in favour of working infinity lifetimes of careers are probably in the upper/white collar classes if they see that as a good thing; to a huge amount of the world, retirement is the carrot dangled ahead of them and dozens of lifetimes of work would be a pretty bad thing.
Whom do you think I am speaking for?
> "please don't confuse that for a good argument for the death of others with a different perspective."
"I want everything" is a youthful perspective that adults grow out of by gaining things and realising that drowning in endless things isn't happiness, it's a hoarding disorder. People with a PetaByte storage array of media aren't the happiest film watchers on the planet, people with a garage full of Lamborghinis aren't the best drivers or the happiest people, Billionaires aren't satisfied with 'enough' money. Indeed, the opposite as one anecdote in this thread commented - a child with nothing who gets an orange is happy; a child with 9 consoles who gets a 10th console and wants an 11th, isn't happy. Saying "I want 1000000 consoles" seems more cringeworthy than convincing. "I want a career" "I want ten careers!" "I want a pony" "I want a hundred lifetimes of pony ownership!". "I want to master an instrument" "I want to master infinity instruments!". Ok mr oneupper. But it makes no difference whether "you" lived all those lives you can't remember, or someone else did. No difference at all. In fact, you may as well assume that other people are you, and their lives are ones you lived and can no longer remember. Everything becomes much simpler and it makes just as much sense.
> "I don't think longevity advocates generally want to prevent suicide or force people to live forever if they don't want to."
I suspect they are against suicide; why would someone who promotes longevity so much also be pro-dying-early? I also suspect one of the reasons our societies are against suicide is because workers can't be allowed an easy escape from their suffering. The kind of people who are in favour of working infinity lifetimes of careers are probably in the upper/white collar classes if they see that as a good thing; to a huge amount of the world, retirement is the carrot dangled ahead of them and dozens of lifetimes of work would be a pretty bad thing.
> Whom do you think I am speaking for?
I think you're speaking for "adults", given your next sentence.
> "I want everything" is a youthful perspective that adults grow out of...
Also:
> > "I don't think longevity advocates generally want to prevent suicide or force people to live forever if they don't want to."
> I suspect they are against suicide; why would someone who promotes longevity so much also be pro-dying-early?
I was ambiguous, sorry. I know for a fact that a great many of longevity advocates advocate legalized suicide. My "I think" was hedging against the fact that I haven't done a survey and don't have hard data. But I think you - understandably, given this is what you're doing - took it as idle, uninformed speculation.
My advice would be actually to read serious arguments in favor of longevity before forming opinions on them. Maybe start here: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/cryonics
I think you're speaking for "adults", given your next sentence.
> "I want everything" is a youthful perspective that adults grow out of...
Also:
> > "I don't think longevity advocates generally want to prevent suicide or force people to live forever if they don't want to."
> I suspect they are against suicide; why would someone who promotes longevity so much also be pro-dying-early?
I was ambiguous, sorry. I know for a fact that a great many of longevity advocates advocate legalized suicide. My "I think" was hedging against the fact that I haven't done a survey and don't have hard data. But I think you - understandably, given this is what you're doing - took it as idle, uninformed speculation.
My advice would be actually to read serious arguments in favor of longevity before forming opinions on them. Maybe start here: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/cryonics
I have read Eliezer Yudkowsky's arguments in favour of longevity, and almost linked them myself. A few of them I can get behind - if there was no death, would we invent it? Probably not. But the cryonics ones I really can't agree with at all. Here in the UK we have a Conservative Prime Minister, a multi-millionaire who, together with his wife, is in the top 250 richest people in the country. And we have nurses, postal workers, transport workers, and more striking for more pay in the wake of the rising living costs, rising inflation, and energy price hikes (hikes which have lead to record profits for energy companies). The Prime Minister recently said that striking workers are "tired of being "foot soldiers" in the union's "class war"".
That's the kind of out of touch that E Yudkowsky's writing has, from his position of employing someone to sit next to him to remind him he's supposed to be writing Harry Potter fan fiction instead of procrastinating. Quite possibly I would agree more if I was a genius academic able to write about anything that interested me for a living and had an audience hanging on my every blog post. Here for example[1] is a LessWrong post from Gwern which I resonate more with. Quotes: "Next to life itself, freedom is the most precious value; and most people’s lives are functionally devoid of it. Many cryonicists fail to see this, because they are self employed, are in jobs that offer them compensating satisfaction, or that they don’t perceive as “work”". and "Heaven isn’t waking up from cryopreservation and having to go into work two weeks later – FOREVER. That is the very definition of hell for most people."
And even then it doesn't capture several things about cryonics arguments which bother me; the fiddling of the finances with insurance. Sure it may cost more than a normal person earns in a lifetime to cryopreserve someone, but if we handwave it away with "insurance" then it will all be fine. Insurance companies are scummy, the academic calculations about risk/reward/probability never take that real world fact into account, "markets are great" they say while everyday people are swindled by marketeers day in, day out. Or the delight in drastic medical treatments where the results may look good on paper, but look at people's lived experience of medical procedure aftermaths, problems they are left with, and it looks uncomfortably different. e.g. [2], c.f. how many doctors would personally refuse the old age treatments their elderly patients+families ask for. And then wonder what the actual lived experience of the cryo-revived would be, separate from the paperwork which says 'revived successfully'.
And then how self-satisified the whole thing is, e.g. from the Gwern post: "many of the arguments that make cryonics credible, require a remarkable degree of both intelligence and scholarship. Inability to understand the enabling ideas and technologies usually means the inability to understand, let alone embrace, cryonics.". Now that alone wouldn't change how likely it is to work, but consider Eliezer Yudkowsky who values his own intelligence more than most things; he is overweight and under exercised[3]. Caloric restriction is the only proven way to extend life in any creatures, and it's much more likely that it is effective in humans than it is that you personally will be cryonically revived, but he doesn't do it. Why not? Exercise is about the only proven way to slow IQ decline with age, something you'd think he would value highly, and it appears he doesn't do that either. Why not?
Compare with Ray Kurzweil and his book "the Fantastic Voyage - live long enough to live forever"[4], he has been partnering with a doctor for decades studying body biochemistry and interventions to improve his health and increase his life expectancy - and doing them - incredibly fiddly diet and micronutrient tracking and regular medical interventions at the doctor's office, dozens of regular blood tests. Seen through the lens of this book what it takes to try and live longer, makes it a bit less attractive to bother, doesn't it? Ray Kurzweil's reason was to live long enough to see the singularity in about 2035 and become immortal and revive his father. EY argues much more strongly for live extension than Ray Kurzweil, but apparently takes far less interest in doing anything about it today. The pro-cryonics arguments are often about how clever the cryonics suporters are for seeing a loophole in the universe - and conveniently it's a loophole that only needs an online signup with a credit card, but if you look at their 'revealed preferences', they aren't convinced enough to act on things which are much more likely to work but involve effort, so maybe agreeing with cryonics isn't about how intelligent you are, it's about how tempted you are to an easy low-effort fix?
Compared to most creatures on Earth we already have longevity, btw. Imagine how much more you could master if you hadn't spent so long commuting, washing vegetables, making your bed, showering, gazing out the window, vacuuming dust-catcher carpets, polishing silverware ... if you surgically removed all your life, how much more life you could cram in. Oh you don't want to give up eating delicious calories for decades for the hope of a few more years at the end? Funny, me either. You don't want to spend hours exercising for the hope of a few more IQ points near the end? Weird, I don't either. You don't want to wash your vegetables in acid and drink only filtered water and spend hours a week analysing your blood test results making microadjustments to your dozens of regular nutritional supplements using the latest medical study results for guidance?[5] Hah, guess what, me either.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mkrvsNi8cYGSjGqkh/on-the-unp...
[2] https://collateral-damage.net/ read the Preview of Chapter One. The developing full story used to be there as blog posts before it was turned into a book, you might find them on https://web.archive.org/web/20081215144025/http://adventures...
[3] https://live.staticflickr.com/6035/6262275090_186d29a15c_b.j... (belly)
[4] http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ and https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83538.Fantastic_Voyage
[5] Ray Kurzweil on supplements: "For boosting antioxidant levels and for general health, I take a comprehensive vitamin-and-mineral combination, alpha lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, grapeseed extract, resveratrol, bilberry extract, lycopene, silymarin (milk thistle), conjugated linoleic acid, lecithin, evening primrose oil (omega-6 essential fatty acids), n-acetyl-cysteine, ginger, garlic, l-carnitine, pyridoxal-5-phosphate, and echinacea. I also take Chinese herbs prescribed by Dr. Glenn Rothfeld. For reducing insulin resistance and overcoming my type 2 diabetes, I take chromium, metformin (a powerful anti-aging medication that decreases insulin resistance and which we recommend everyone over 50 consider taking), and gymnema sylvestra. To improve LDL and HDL cholesterol levels, I take policosanol, gugulipid, plant sterols, niacin, oat bran, grapefruit powder, psyllium, lecithin, and Lipitor. To improve blood vessel health, I take arginine, trimethylglycine, and choline. To decrease blood viscosity, I take a daily baby aspirin and lumbrokinase, a natural anti-fibrinolytic agent. Although my CRP (the screening test for inflammation in the body) is very low, I reduce inflammation by taking EPA/DHA (omega-3 essential fatty acids) and curcumin. I have dramatically reduced my homocysteine level by taking folic acid, B6, and trimethylglycine (TMG), and intrinsic factor to improve methylation. I have a B12 shot once a week and take a daily B12 sublingual. Several of my intravenous therapies improve my body’s detoxification: weekly EDTA (for chelating heavy metals, a major source of aging) and monthly DMPS (to chelate mercury). I also take n-acetyl-l-carnitine orally. I take weekly intravenous vitamins and alpha lipoic acid to boost antioxidants. I do a weekly glutathione IV to boost liver health. Perhaps the most important intravenous therapy I do is a weekly phosphatidylcholine (PtC) IV, which rejuvenates all of the body’s tissues by restoring youthful cell membranes. I also take PtC orally each day, and I supplement my hormone levels with DHEA and testosterone. I take I-3-C (indole-3-carbinol), chrysin, nettle, ginger, and herbs to reduce conversion of testosterone into estrogen. I take a saw palmetto complex for prostate health. For stress management, I take l-theonine (the calming substance in green tea), beta sitosterol, phosphatidylserine, and green tea supplements, in addition to drinking 8 to 10 cups of green tea itself. At bedtime, to aid with sleep, I take GABA (a gentle, calming neuro-transmitter) and sublingual melatonin. For brain health, I take acetyl-l-carnitine, vinpocetine, phosphatidylserine, ginkgo biloba, glycerylphosphorylcholine, nextrutine, and quercetin. For eye health, I take lutein and bilberry extract. For skin health, I use an antioxidant skin cream on my face, neck, and hands each day. For digestive health, I take betaine HCL, pepsin, gentian root, peppermint, acidophilus bifodobacter, fructooligosaccharides, fish proteins, l-glutamine, and n-acetyl-d-glucosamine. To inhibit the creation of advanced glycosylated end products (AGEs), a key aging process, I take n-acetyl-carnitine, carnosine, alpha lipoic acid, and quercetin." - now that's longevity in practise, who's still interested? Who even bothered to read this, let alone do it?
That's the kind of out of touch that E Yudkowsky's writing has, from his position of employing someone to sit next to him to remind him he's supposed to be writing Harry Potter fan fiction instead of procrastinating. Quite possibly I would agree more if I was a genius academic able to write about anything that interested me for a living and had an audience hanging on my every blog post. Here for example[1] is a LessWrong post from Gwern which I resonate more with. Quotes: "Next to life itself, freedom is the most precious value; and most people’s lives are functionally devoid of it. Many cryonicists fail to see this, because they are self employed, are in jobs that offer them compensating satisfaction, or that they don’t perceive as “work”". and "Heaven isn’t waking up from cryopreservation and having to go into work two weeks later – FOREVER. That is the very definition of hell for most people."
And even then it doesn't capture several things about cryonics arguments which bother me; the fiddling of the finances with insurance. Sure it may cost more than a normal person earns in a lifetime to cryopreserve someone, but if we handwave it away with "insurance" then it will all be fine. Insurance companies are scummy, the academic calculations about risk/reward/probability never take that real world fact into account, "markets are great" they say while everyday people are swindled by marketeers day in, day out. Or the delight in drastic medical treatments where the results may look good on paper, but look at people's lived experience of medical procedure aftermaths, problems they are left with, and it looks uncomfortably different. e.g. [2], c.f. how many doctors would personally refuse the old age treatments their elderly patients+families ask for. And then wonder what the actual lived experience of the cryo-revived would be, separate from the paperwork which says 'revived successfully'.
And then how self-satisified the whole thing is, e.g. from the Gwern post: "many of the arguments that make cryonics credible, require a remarkable degree of both intelligence and scholarship. Inability to understand the enabling ideas and technologies usually means the inability to understand, let alone embrace, cryonics.". Now that alone wouldn't change how likely it is to work, but consider Eliezer Yudkowsky who values his own intelligence more than most things; he is overweight and under exercised[3]. Caloric restriction is the only proven way to extend life in any creatures, and it's much more likely that it is effective in humans than it is that you personally will be cryonically revived, but he doesn't do it. Why not? Exercise is about the only proven way to slow IQ decline with age, something you'd think he would value highly, and it appears he doesn't do that either. Why not?
Compare with Ray Kurzweil and his book "the Fantastic Voyage - live long enough to live forever"[4], he has been partnering with a doctor for decades studying body biochemistry and interventions to improve his health and increase his life expectancy - and doing them - incredibly fiddly diet and micronutrient tracking and regular medical interventions at the doctor's office, dozens of regular blood tests. Seen through the lens of this book what it takes to try and live longer, makes it a bit less attractive to bother, doesn't it? Ray Kurzweil's reason was to live long enough to see the singularity in about 2035 and become immortal and revive his father. EY argues much more strongly for live extension than Ray Kurzweil, but apparently takes far less interest in doing anything about it today. The pro-cryonics arguments are often about how clever the cryonics suporters are for seeing a loophole in the universe - and conveniently it's a loophole that only needs an online signup with a credit card, but if you look at their 'revealed preferences', they aren't convinced enough to act on things which are much more likely to work but involve effort, so maybe agreeing with cryonics isn't about how intelligent you are, it's about how tempted you are to an easy low-effort fix?
Compared to most creatures on Earth we already have longevity, btw. Imagine how much more you could master if you hadn't spent so long commuting, washing vegetables, making your bed, showering, gazing out the window, vacuuming dust-catcher carpets, polishing silverware ... if you surgically removed all your life, how much more life you could cram in. Oh you don't want to give up eating delicious calories for decades for the hope of a few more years at the end? Funny, me either. You don't want to spend hours exercising for the hope of a few more IQ points near the end? Weird, I don't either. You don't want to wash your vegetables in acid and drink only filtered water and spend hours a week analysing your blood test results making microadjustments to your dozens of regular nutritional supplements using the latest medical study results for guidance?[5] Hah, guess what, me either.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mkrvsNi8cYGSjGqkh/on-the-unp...
[2] https://collateral-damage.net/ read the Preview of Chapter One. The developing full story used to be there as blog posts before it was turned into a book, you might find them on https://web.archive.org/web/20081215144025/http://adventures...
[3] https://live.staticflickr.com/6035/6262275090_186d29a15c_b.j... (belly)
[4] http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/ and https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83538.Fantastic_Voyage
[5] Ray Kurzweil on supplements: "For boosting antioxidant levels and for general health, I take a comprehensive vitamin-and-mineral combination, alpha lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, grapeseed extract, resveratrol, bilberry extract, lycopene, silymarin (milk thistle), conjugated linoleic acid, lecithin, evening primrose oil (omega-6 essential fatty acids), n-acetyl-cysteine, ginger, garlic, l-carnitine, pyridoxal-5-phosphate, and echinacea. I also take Chinese herbs prescribed by Dr. Glenn Rothfeld. For reducing insulin resistance and overcoming my type 2 diabetes, I take chromium, metformin (a powerful anti-aging medication that decreases insulin resistance and which we recommend everyone over 50 consider taking), and gymnema sylvestra. To improve LDL and HDL cholesterol levels, I take policosanol, gugulipid, plant sterols, niacin, oat bran, grapefruit powder, psyllium, lecithin, and Lipitor. To improve blood vessel health, I take arginine, trimethylglycine, and choline. To decrease blood viscosity, I take a daily baby aspirin and lumbrokinase, a natural anti-fibrinolytic agent. Although my CRP (the screening test for inflammation in the body) is very low, I reduce inflammation by taking EPA/DHA (omega-3 essential fatty acids) and curcumin. I have dramatically reduced my homocysteine level by taking folic acid, B6, and trimethylglycine (TMG), and intrinsic factor to improve methylation. I have a B12 shot once a week and take a daily B12 sublingual. Several of my intravenous therapies improve my body’s detoxification: weekly EDTA (for chelating heavy metals, a major source of aging) and monthly DMPS (to chelate mercury). I also take n-acetyl-l-carnitine orally. I take weekly intravenous vitamins and alpha lipoic acid to boost antioxidants. I do a weekly glutathione IV to boost liver health. Perhaps the most important intravenous therapy I do is a weekly phosphatidylcholine (PtC) IV, which rejuvenates all of the body’s tissues by restoring youthful cell membranes. I also take PtC orally each day, and I supplement my hormone levels with DHEA and testosterone. I take I-3-C (indole-3-carbinol), chrysin, nettle, ginger, and herbs to reduce conversion of testosterone into estrogen. I take a saw palmetto complex for prostate health. For stress management, I take l-theonine (the calming substance in green tea), beta sitosterol, phosphatidylserine, and green tea supplements, in addition to drinking 8 to 10 cups of green tea itself. At bedtime, to aid with sleep, I take GABA (a gentle, calming neuro-transmitter) and sublingual melatonin. For brain health, I take acetyl-l-carnitine, vinpocetine, phosphatidylserine, ginkgo biloba, glycerylphosphorylcholine, nextrutine, and quercetin. For eye health, I take lutein and bilberry extract. For skin health, I use an antioxidant skin cream on my face, neck, and hands each day. For digestive health, I take betaine HCL, pepsin, gentian root, peppermint, acidophilus bifodobacter, fructooligosaccharides, fish proteins, l-glutamine, and n-acetyl-d-glucosamine. To inhibit the creation of advanced glycosylated end products (AGEs), a key aging process, I take n-acetyl-carnitine, carnosine, alpha lipoic acid, and quercetin." - now that's longevity in practise, who's still interested? Who even bothered to read this, let alone do it?
If everything in Kruzweil's list was rolled up into one cheap pill I could take daily, I might be willing to try it. I think it's probable that it'd have no significant effect on my lifespan, and I think it's not that unlikely that it would shorten it.
I agree that the idea of crisscrossing the world to take every possible scenic selfie seems empty. For some people, it won't though. There's also so much more available to us than just this sort of consumption.
Personally, I've always had the itch to recreate as much of the computing stack I rely on as possible. I love the idea of running my own text editor in my own shell, written in my own programming language, compiled with my own compiler, running on my own operating system. Not because I think I would be pushing the state of the art forward or that it would be commercially viable, but just for kicks. The joy of truly understanding.
I think this is not a completely uncommon feeling, which is why a lot of programmers could look at Terry Davis and say "okay, aside from the obvious mental illness, the racism and the antisemitism, there is something there." He spent years building something with little value to anybody beyond himself. Zach and Tarn Adams spending twenty years on Dwarf Fortress also comes to mind, to the extent they are doing it for themselves. These projects require huge sacrifices on the part of their creators. The opportunity costs incurred shape their lives (e.g. the Dwarf Fortress decisions currently being made based on health insurance coverage). I can't imagine inflicting the programmer monk lifestyle that would come along with such long term non-commercial work on my young kids when the end state is just "Yeah, it's useless but I got a kick out of doing it."
Being honest, it's also hard to imagine that once my kids move out and I can pick a more austere lifestyle just for myself, I'll look at the remaining ~20 years of my life and say, "I think I will devote the rest of my life to this one single 'that would be kinda neat' drive."
If I had, say, 100, 200, 500 more good years where I could just subsist and pursue passion projects? I'd love to spend 10-20 years going down the "recreate all your software from scratch" rabbit hole.
---
A thought on the "society needs death" idea: if my continued existence pursuing obscure hobbies without economic value is a drain on society, maybe the fix isn't that I must die at some arbitrary age fixed by evolution, maybe the fix is just a better way to account for the costs and benefits of our actions. Don't say nobody can spend 10,000 years jetsetting from tourist spot to tourist spot, just require them to offset it through their other actions so that on balance they've made a positive contribution.
Personally, I've always had the itch to recreate as much of the computing stack I rely on as possible. I love the idea of running my own text editor in my own shell, written in my own programming language, compiled with my own compiler, running on my own operating system. Not because I think I would be pushing the state of the art forward or that it would be commercially viable, but just for kicks. The joy of truly understanding.
I think this is not a completely uncommon feeling, which is why a lot of programmers could look at Terry Davis and say "okay, aside from the obvious mental illness, the racism and the antisemitism, there is something there." He spent years building something with little value to anybody beyond himself. Zach and Tarn Adams spending twenty years on Dwarf Fortress also comes to mind, to the extent they are doing it for themselves. These projects require huge sacrifices on the part of their creators. The opportunity costs incurred shape their lives (e.g. the Dwarf Fortress decisions currently being made based on health insurance coverage). I can't imagine inflicting the programmer monk lifestyle that would come along with such long term non-commercial work on my young kids when the end state is just "Yeah, it's useless but I got a kick out of doing it."
Being honest, it's also hard to imagine that once my kids move out and I can pick a more austere lifestyle just for myself, I'll look at the remaining ~20 years of my life and say, "I think I will devote the rest of my life to this one single 'that would be kinda neat' drive."
If I had, say, 100, 200, 500 more good years where I could just subsist and pursue passion projects? I'd love to spend 10-20 years going down the "recreate all your software from scratch" rabbit hole.
---
A thought on the "society needs death" idea: if my continued existence pursuing obscure hobbies without economic value is a drain on society, maybe the fix isn't that I must die at some arbitrary age fixed by evolution, maybe the fix is just a better way to account for the costs and benefits of our actions. Don't say nobody can spend 10,000 years jetsetting from tourist spot to tourist spot, just require them to offset it through their other actions so that on balance they've made a positive contribution.
Yes, materialism is an empty pursuit.
That's not an interesting comment. What isn't an empty pursuit?
Charity, love, contemplation of beauty, building friendships, raising children, many more. These are not empty in many ways, they provide long lasting satisfaction, they help others, they give you a feeling of peace, they can be shared freely, they provide meaning and make the world a better place for yourself and others.
I’ve found learning harder as I age. I can still do it, but I don’t think we’re as elastic as we are at 5, or 18. I’m guessing but I think it’s both internal changes and the sheer product of an expanded mental landscape. We have more to consider than a freshman. I think focusing really hard and making changes is easier when you have less on your plate. In a few years, an 18 year old can transform the trajectory of their life. It’s much harder when you’re 50.
This isn’t absolute. Of course with an infinite life some of these restrictions go away, but unless we get rid of the meat minds I think we’ll have some built-in limitations that are core to who we are as humans. I honestly think I learn more than most of my peers because I keep trying to, but I do find myself getting less interested in the latest fad. Some amazing people can learn entirely new life journeys, Carmack or SamA, say. But look at most people you know. Most are going to keep plugging away getting crankier and crankier. If those people hold power and grow their wealth indefinitely, I think that’s a net negative.
Max Plank said, paraphrased: Science progresses one funeral at a time.
We make way for the youth to have their go, with our influence reducing over time.
This all ends when AI arrives anyway. Change has to outpace us. Someone or something will get your wish of indefinite life, and we’ll find out how these patterns change.
This isn’t absolute. Of course with an infinite life some of these restrictions go away, but unless we get rid of the meat minds I think we’ll have some built-in limitations that are core to who we are as humans. I honestly think I learn more than most of my peers because I keep trying to, but I do find myself getting less interested in the latest fad. Some amazing people can learn entirely new life journeys, Carmack or SamA, say. But look at most people you know. Most are going to keep plugging away getting crankier and crankier. If those people hold power and grow their wealth indefinitely, I think that’s a net negative.
Max Plank said, paraphrased: Science progresses one funeral at a time.
We make way for the youth to have their go, with our influence reducing over time.
This all ends when AI arrives anyway. Change has to outpace us. Someone or something will get your wish of indefinite life, and we’ll find out how these patterns change.
That mental calcification, if it's so universal, seems like it's probably partly physiological in nature. It's the sort of thing that could be changed, in time, if people wanted to make themselves more or less neuroplastic.
> I suspect in hundreds or thousands of years we'll look back at age-related death culturally the same way we look at infant mortality during the medieval ages
Currently our culture/civilisation can be expected with my life. We won't adapt as you can see by us not adapting even now for mitigation on a societal level at all.
But yes, death of old age is the sorrow of our days!
Currently our culture/civilisation can be expected with my life. We won't adapt as you can see by us not adapting even now for mitigation on a societal level at all.
But yes, death of old age is the sorrow of our days!
When I was younger I wanted to live forever, nowadays I'm more at peace with the idea of death.
There are a couple of things that make death bearable. Any longevity treatment should placate the first and we should aim to compensate the second with plenty of change in our lives.
First is physical ailments. Even a healthy person will accumulate aches, and those will slowly erode they will to live. Several of my grandparents (and some that were not mine) have expressed that they were waiting to be taken, and I'd wager that would be a part.
Second is the mental fatigue. Not only your mental state is akin to your physical one, so you might be mentally exhausted, but also you begin to get bored with most media. It's hard to find a story that hasn't been told before, music that you find original and good, few dishes that you still dare to discover, ... .
Apart from the personal point of view there's also the general one. There two more problem arise.
Sustainability, as the planet can support what it can. The society and the way resources are managed will have to change a lot if people live longer. But don't worry because...
Power. You'd go from families holding power to individuals. No longer the young master will spend all the money and none will be left, because their parents will have control over that. Situation could become even more oppressive with them withholding the longevity treatments, giving some to their employees and none to the general public.
So while I agree with your sentiment, which is also beautifully expressed in HPNOR, I'd say that there's a lot of transformations to be made before it's good.
There are a couple of things that make death bearable. Any longevity treatment should placate the first and we should aim to compensate the second with plenty of change in our lives.
First is physical ailments. Even a healthy person will accumulate aches, and those will slowly erode they will to live. Several of my grandparents (and some that were not mine) have expressed that they were waiting to be taken, and I'd wager that would be a part.
Second is the mental fatigue. Not only your mental state is akin to your physical one, so you might be mentally exhausted, but also you begin to get bored with most media. It's hard to find a story that hasn't been told before, music that you find original and good, few dishes that you still dare to discover, ... .
Apart from the personal point of view there's also the general one. There two more problem arise.
Sustainability, as the planet can support what it can. The society and the way resources are managed will have to change a lot if people live longer. But don't worry because...
Power. You'd go from families holding power to individuals. No longer the young master will spend all the money and none will be left, because their parents will have control over that. Situation could become even more oppressive with them withholding the longevity treatments, giving some to their employees and none to the general public.
So while I agree with your sentiment, which is also beautifully expressed in HPNOR, I'd say that there's a lot of transformations to be made before it's good.
HPNOR?
HPMOR [0], sorry. Harry Potter and the methods of rationality. A Harry Potter fanfic that is quite interesting.
[0] http://www.hpmor.com/
[0] http://www.hpmor.com/
Harry Potter and the Now Older Reader
The notion that immortality is a good idea fades with age. Youth is more important, because as you age opportunities and options vanish and ailments and limitations arise. If you can give me immortality, health and my youth, I may reconsider.
That's why what most research is trying to extend healthspan and lifespan. All drugs that are in clinical studies today are either trying to push the old part to later in life or just targeting what is making us old so we don't well, get old. The goal is to maintain that youth.
Pretty much everyone who is getting frozen want youth rather than prolonged old age, they think a cure for aging will eventually happen.
I'd certainly rather live 100 years with a 20 year old body than 200 years with a 90 year old one.
I'd certainly rather live 100 years with a 20 year old body than 200 years with a 90 year old one.
I sincerely hope you are wrong. Not being able to accept that things go, and new things come about, feels pathological to me.
As well as getting used to the idea of losing loved ones. Anyone who doesn't feel anything from the loss of close relationship, or conversely, does not seek out to make new ones, isn't likely going to be a well adjusted noble immortal with humanities best intententions at heart (see: Man From Earth), but an immoral perpetual leach that only serves themselves (see: various vampire films).
Living 1000 years wouldn't necessarily imply resistance to change. I'm not sure why you think that it would.
I subjectively disagree from observation.
Change in viewpoints, lifestyle or behavior become exceedingly rare the older people get. Also, the youth is always incapable, stupid and wrong. It's so much of a phenomenon that I wouldn't dare blaming anyone for this. It almost seems to be part of normal development.
People just tend to become more mentally rigid with age and they have a perfect justification ready for you: experience. They have seen it all and can therefore judge everything and everyone (without considering changed circumstances of course which would require to adjust the mental frame that was rigidly formed across the ages).
Change in viewpoints, lifestyle or behavior become exceedingly rare the older people get. Also, the youth is always incapable, stupid and wrong. It's so much of a phenomenon that I wouldn't dare blaming anyone for this. It almost seems to be part of normal development.
People just tend to become more mentally rigid with age and they have a perfect justification ready for you: experience. They have seen it all and can therefore judge everything and everyone (without considering changed circumstances of course which would require to adjust the mental frame that was rigidly formed across the ages).
Everyone has brain damage that accumulates over the course of your life. A 50-year old has a lot fewer brain cells than a 20-year old; I wonder what would happen if you regrew them?
For a counter thought: while I absolutely agree with you in terms of richness of life, I don’t think pursuing endless life is a sound idea.
As parent poster wrote, we like nostalgia, because we clutch to our experiences. We compare them instead of collecting it. On the other side the more we experience something the more we stall or get bored. Even with other people - with increase of lifespan we also increased number of divorces, lost connections etc. That doesn’t make us happier.
One could argue that we, as humans, suffer more today from out deteriorating bodies, than people in medieval time, when it was shorter, and that we suffer more psychologically due to increased influx of information, global conscience and artificial constructs we build every day.
Resources would also be an issue, so even if immortality would be obtainable it’d be either reserved for the richest or would divide people with almost impassable line splitting centuries of servitude and centuries of indulgence.
So to answer your question - why not? Because it’ll bring suffer to many on many levels except for a blessed few and we should focus first on making life great for everyone present before trying to make it infinitely longer.
Joking lightly (as subject is very deep) - it’s somewhat useful skill to know when to get off the stage.
As parent poster wrote, we like nostalgia, because we clutch to our experiences. We compare them instead of collecting it. On the other side the more we experience something the more we stall or get bored. Even with other people - with increase of lifespan we also increased number of divorces, lost connections etc. That doesn’t make us happier.
One could argue that we, as humans, suffer more today from out deteriorating bodies, than people in medieval time, when it was shorter, and that we suffer more psychologically due to increased influx of information, global conscience and artificial constructs we build every day.
Resources would also be an issue, so even if immortality would be obtainable it’d be either reserved for the richest or would divide people with almost impassable line splitting centuries of servitude and centuries of indulgence.
So to answer your question - why not? Because it’ll bring suffer to many on many levels except for a blessed few and we should focus first on making life great for everyone present before trying to make it infinitely longer.
Joking lightly (as subject is very deep) - it’s somewhat useful skill to know when to get off the stage.
It would not only be for the rich. Healthcare cost are incredibly expensive especially later in live so governments have a strong inventive to provide it for everyone. Also people wont have to retire anymore (also great for government)
The most expensive part about it would probably be research, but since every person on the planet is a potential user and there a big savings in Healthcare and Pension i don't see costs being a problem.
Humans dont progress in terms of biological evolution anymore but instead technologically. The increased lifespan would allow scientist to master multiple fields which would be great for progress.
Humans dont progress in terms of biological evolution anymore but instead technologically. The increased lifespan would allow scientist to master multiple fields which would be great for progress.
Access to “high end” care (which I suppose would be one) is already high cost which is not that accessible even with technology presence.
As of 2019 1/3 of world’s population doesn’t have access to clean drinking water. Would they be glad that instead of clean water and sanitary conditions they were granted endless life?
It’s nice to focus on optimistic outcomes but except for genius scientists world is full of mobsters, greedy bankers and ruthless corporation heads. They’d had a chance for longevity way sooner than the best of scientists (who have “infinite memory” trait, which isn’t true even for the healthiest of humans).
Sure, we’re speculating (and it’s fun) but I’d invite to mix at least 30% of “what could go wrong” as part of the context.
Let’s have a thought experiment: who would be the first to get such treatment - Nobel prize winner or a dictator? What would be the route, who would pay for that, would they even want that (as that’s not guaranteed).
As of 2019 1/3 of world’s population doesn’t have access to clean drinking water. Would they be glad that instead of clean water and sanitary conditions they were granted endless life?
It’s nice to focus on optimistic outcomes but except for genius scientists world is full of mobsters, greedy bankers and ruthless corporation heads. They’d had a chance for longevity way sooner than the best of scientists (who have “infinite memory” trait, which isn’t true even for the healthiest of humans).
Sure, we’re speculating (and it’s fun) but I’d invite to mix at least 30% of “what could go wrong” as part of the context.
Let’s have a thought experiment: who would be the first to get such treatment - Nobel prize winner or a dictator? What would be the route, who would pay for that, would they even want that (as that’s not guaranteed).
Dictator could pay more for it but would probably be to paranoid to actually do it until its proven technologically.
So my bet would be on the Noble Prize winner because of curiosity and good connections to the people working on the technology.
If the technology first emerges you could probably get it quite cheaply because its not proven yet. Afterwards there will be a scarity due to everyone wanting it which will drive prices up. In the long run it becomes a free commodity due to being a net saving for governments.
But even if the rich and ruthless get it first, that doesnt matter much in the long run. Medical improvements tend to get cheaper with time. The incentives are there to provide it to everyone. And especially so in a democracy.
If the technology first emerges you could probably get it quite cheaply because its not proven yet. Afterwards there will be a scarity due to everyone wanting it which will drive prices up. In the long run it becomes a free commodity due to being a net saving for governments.
But even if the rich and ruthless get it first, that doesnt matter much in the long run. Medical improvements tend to get cheaper with time. The incentives are there to provide it to everyone. And especially so in a democracy.
Based on previous events Covid provided wealth of data, and it was high profile people who got access to vaccinations and experimental treatment first, in many countries celebrities got their shots before healthcare workers.
Immortality also doesn’t equal invincibility. One can get sick, one can brake their bones and still suffer. With assumption that immortality would come with great regenerative capabilities - would that include teeth as well? What would happen if we’d lost some due to accident? Would it extend to limbs?
I think main question is why one would like to be immortal? Experiencing thing is nice thing, but with great biological change world would change too. Population would grow and scarcity would be even worse. Probably people would work most of the time just to be able to sleep (due housing shortage) and eat (due food shortage as a result of decreased production area).
It’s possible that bigger chunks of our lives (except “the winners”) would consist of work (another prior example - while we work less for last couple centuries, work devices are omnipresent falsifying data, and we still work much more than in pre-industrial times [1])
If you hadn’t had chance I’d recommend Upload show available on Amazon Prime. It’s somewhat tangential (as it’s endless virtual afterlife) but it touches some possible issues relatable to our discussion
[1]: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
Immortality also doesn’t equal invincibility. One can get sick, one can brake their bones and still suffer. With assumption that immortality would come with great regenerative capabilities - would that include teeth as well? What would happen if we’d lost some due to accident? Would it extend to limbs?
I think main question is why one would like to be immortal? Experiencing thing is nice thing, but with great biological change world would change too. Population would grow and scarcity would be even worse. Probably people would work most of the time just to be able to sleep (due housing shortage) and eat (due food shortage as a result of decreased production area).
It’s possible that bigger chunks of our lives (except “the winners”) would consist of work (another prior example - while we work less for last couple centuries, work devices are omnipresent falsifying data, and we still work much more than in pre-industrial times [1])
If you hadn’t had chance I’d recommend Upload show available on Amazon Prime. It’s somewhat tangential (as it’s endless virtual afterlife) but it touches some possible issues relatable to our discussion
[1]: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
Thanks!, that show sounds interesting. Will look into it.
Immortality is maybe the wrong word for what i have in mind. Its more eternal youth but you can still be killed. Best analogy would be the elves in lord of the rings.
My hope would be that the higher life experience combined with a healthy body would allow us to be better as a species.
Media seems pretty dystopian and dark in general right now. I think that may influence the outlook of many regarding the future. Certainly could turn out that way but i think there is also a big chance it will be way different and better then we think right now.
Immortality is maybe the wrong word for what i have in mind. Its more eternal youth but you can still be killed. Best analogy would be the elves in lord of the rings.
My hope would be that the higher life experience combined with a healthy body would allow us to be better as a species.
Media seems pretty dystopian and dark in general right now. I think that may influence the outlook of many regarding the future. Certainly could turn out that way but i think there is also a big chance it will be way different and better then we think right now.
I think this is true for many, but it is not true for all. Some of us would thrive in these new circumstances. I am extremely inflexible when it comes to emotions. There is more to it, but the way I've explained it to others is that my clock for emotions ticks 10 times slower compared to them. That is, if I develop emotions at all. This is something that has affected every aspect of my life for as long as I can remember. There doesn't seem to be a way to "fix" it, but for a long time I've considered "more time" to be the best way to accommodate it and for me to live life at the pace that works for me. Obviously, I won't know until I try, but I would very much appreciate the chance to get a shot at it. And, much like the parent commenter, I am very eager to see more of this world before leaving it. Whatever may or may not come after isn't going anywhere, so might as well take some time.
Yeah! And it would also elreduce ones stress level quite a bit, with a lot of "you need to do X before you are too old for it" no longer being a problem as well as all the emotional damage of people you know dying all the time, especially as you grow old.
Note that you're whole comment is from the perspective of how you benefit from immortality.
If we think of some collective 'Gaia Hypothesis' rather than yourself, then keeping you (specifically) around forever is kind of a big commitment, no?
Perhaps you are just not that big of a deal to be worthy of keeping around? And how would you square keeping you around and not Joe? Is it resources based? Than we would be stuck with a collective of eternal wealthy people, which judging by the sample of mortals available today sounds pretty uninteresting.
Yes it's amazing and you're having your turn at it right now! Enjoy it and then pass it forward.
If we think of some collective 'Gaia Hypothesis' rather than yourself, then keeping you (specifically) around forever is kind of a big commitment, no?
Perhaps you are just not that big of a deal to be worthy of keeping around? And how would you square keeping you around and not Joe? Is it resources based? Than we would be stuck with a collective of eternal wealthy people, which judging by the sample of mortals available today sounds pretty uninteresting.
Yes it's amazing and you're having your turn at it right now! Enjoy it and then pass it forward.
> per-say
Quick note because you seem like the type of person who’d like to know, it’s “per se”: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per_se
Quick note because you seem like the type of person who’d like to know, it’s “per se”: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per_se
Yes, thanks. You're right (though I can no longer edit).
This is a beautiful feeling, but I believe it is far too easy to dismiss how risky "eliminating death" could be.
To offer one example democracy would be mostly impossible in a post mortality world.
Also immortal humans would be either fertile or infertile and both cases would create quite weird situations.
If I can conclude with some posturing, it is part of human nature to strive toward better conditions and solve the problems around us. This might be our demise, as both giving up on that nature and following it to its logical end might lead to our end.
To offer one example democracy would be mostly impossible in a post mortality world.
Also immortal humans would be either fertile or infertile and both cases would create quite weird situations.
If I can conclude with some posturing, it is part of human nature to strive toward better conditions and solve the problems around us. This might be our demise, as both giving up on that nature and following it to its logical end might lead to our end.
HN is always good for a interesting comment or two.
But rarely do you get an excellent back and forth as these thought provoking, diametrically opposite but equally compelling comments!
But rarely do you get an excellent back and forth as these thought provoking, diametrically opposite but equally compelling comments!
A world where no people ever died of natural causes would become, fast, a world where war would be the rule, and not the exception. In one generation alone, Earth would go from 7 billion people, to 14 billion. It would be Hell on Earth, literally.
You're assuming that birth rates would remain the same, when that immediately feels like it would not at all be the case.
Even if we manage to keep our neurons and connections young forever, they are limited.
My guess is that we’ll inevitably begin to forget the older, less important stuff even with a completely healthy brain simply due to size constrain.
My guess is that we’ll inevitably begin to forget the older, less important stuff even with a completely healthy brain simply due to size constrain.
It is also incredibly for me to belive the parent comment about the contentment with death. Why don't people want to escape death? These people are either extremely religious and brainwashed or they are big hypocrites why say morally correct shit like this but will do anything to extend their life if it is within their reach
If we don’t die we don’t evolve. If we had many lives then each one would be less meaningful. I do feel the pull on my heartstrings in your comment (wouldn’t that be wonderful), but an engineer will expand to fit as much time as you give them. We’d at least need to put age limits on political participation.
> If we don’t die we don’t evolve.
Sure we will, just not in the traditional natural-selection sense. In many ways humans have "beaten" evolution by finding medical means to allow "unfit" humans to live full lives, and often pass on their genes.
Evolution in the future could be via technical means, either through advancements in medicine, or with cybernetic implants. If humans could ever become intellectually & ethically pure enough to be trusted with genetic engineering ourselves, that's another form of self-made evolution.
> If we had many lives then each one would be less meaningful.
That's a very personal thing, and just an opinion. With changes in lifespan, attitudes change, purpose changes, and people change their outlook. Once upon a time, humans lived much shorter lives, with many/most not making it out of their 30s. Now life expectancy is in the 70s and 80s. And yet we don't look at this doubling of our lifespans and believe that all that extra time robs our lives of meaning. So why should that be the case if we could live to be 500?
> We’d at least need to put age limits on political participation.
Perhaps, but that should be a floating limit that gets adjusted upward with life expectancy. If people regularly lived to be 200, maybe 190-year-olds wouldn't be fit to serve, but a 100-year-old? Why not? And if we managed to push that to 400, those 190-year-olds would start to seem pretty relevant; it would be an injustice to deny them participation in the political system.
Regardless, our idea of society itself would need a huge overhaul even if our lifespans were doubled, let alone made effectively limitless. Political participation would likely be the least of our worries.
Sure we will, just not in the traditional natural-selection sense. In many ways humans have "beaten" evolution by finding medical means to allow "unfit" humans to live full lives, and often pass on their genes.
Evolution in the future could be via technical means, either through advancements in medicine, or with cybernetic implants. If humans could ever become intellectually & ethically pure enough to be trusted with genetic engineering ourselves, that's another form of self-made evolution.
> If we had many lives then each one would be less meaningful.
That's a very personal thing, and just an opinion. With changes in lifespan, attitudes change, purpose changes, and people change their outlook. Once upon a time, humans lived much shorter lives, with many/most not making it out of their 30s. Now life expectancy is in the 70s and 80s. And yet we don't look at this doubling of our lifespans and believe that all that extra time robs our lives of meaning. So why should that be the case if we could live to be 500?
> We’d at least need to put age limits on political participation.
Perhaps, but that should be a floating limit that gets adjusted upward with life expectancy. If people regularly lived to be 200, maybe 190-year-olds wouldn't be fit to serve, but a 100-year-old? Why not? And if we managed to push that to 400, those 190-year-olds would start to seem pretty relevant; it would be an injustice to deny them participation in the political system.
Regardless, our idea of society itself would need a huge overhaul even if our lifespans were doubled, let alone made effectively limitless. Political participation would likely be the least of our worries.
> "Once upon a time, humans lived much shorter lives, with many/most not making it out of their 30s."
Citation needed; because that's commonly believed to be average life expectancy - brought down by infant mortality. If you made it past ~5 years old, you had a good chance of living to 60-80.
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten" - Psalm 90:10, the King James Bible.
"A man will spend ten years as a child before he understands death and life. He spends another ten years acquiring the instruction by which he will be able to live. He spends another ten years earning and gaining possessions by which to live. He spends another ten years up to old age, when his heart becomes is counsellor. There remain sixty years of the whole life, which Thoth has assigned to be the man of god." - A passage from The Insinger Papyrus, in the Ptolemaic period"
Citation needed; because that's commonly believed to be average life expectancy - brought down by infant mortality. If you made it past ~5 years old, you had a good chance of living to 60-80.
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten" - Psalm 90:10, the King James Bible.
"A man will spend ten years as a child before he understands death and life. He spends another ten years acquiring the instruction by which he will be able to live. He spends another ten years earning and gaining possessions by which to live. He spends another ten years up to old age, when his heart becomes is counsellor. There remain sixty years of the whole life, which Thoth has assigned to be the man of god." - A passage from The Insinger Papyrus, in the Ptolemaic period"
> If we don’t die we don’t evolve.
Not as a species though. We just have to keep reproducing more of us that are good at staying alive and also reproducing to evolve. You and I theoretically could live forever in the same state, and still, our species would evolve via our offspring and theirs and so on.
Not as a species though. We just have to keep reproducing more of us that are good at staying alive and also reproducing to evolve. You and I theoretically could live forever in the same state, and still, our species would evolve via our offspring and theirs and so on.
I think the OP has a point - look at the cycle of innovation e.g in physics - happens almost every 100! I think it’s not an accident - as older generation die out the new ones can easily question the wisdom of the death vs living giants!
Or you could maybe go much faster as you don't have to tech new generations of physicists all iver again & you won't loose all the Nobel Price level geniuses after a few decades.
> If we don’t die we don’t evolve.
If you're actually worried about evolution you'll want to bring back eugenics. Current selective pressures are quite relaxed, leading to an increase in deleterious mutations and rising future healthcare costs.
If you're actually worried about evolution you'll want to bring back eugenics. Current selective pressures are quite relaxed, leading to an increase in deleterious mutations and rising future healthcare costs.
I sort of imagine. Neuralink type of device combined with somatic cell nuclear transfer, cloning oneself but reliving being born again and growing up, accessing your Neuralink at age 18, accessing your memories.
There's are a point in death. So if you fix death, then you also have to fix the problems that death fixes.
Why would there necessarily be a point to death?
Without age related death people would be terrified to experience anything incase it lead to their death.. crossing the road would be an incredibly high risk activity in such a future.
Infant mortality is quite different: we know that infants are supposed to live. Extending life is the opposite: death is the normal, even unavoidable end. The comparison is misplaced.
> I could spend a lifetime in each trying to develop mastery
No, you couldn't. You would still be your aged brain, not capable of learning hundreds of professions, and your frail body, not capable of replacing its cells any longer. It requires more than a better way to heat up a corpse to extend life.
I'll leave you with this (paraphrase of a) quote: millions long for immortality, but don't know what to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
> I could spend a lifetime in each trying to develop mastery
No, you couldn't. You would still be your aged brain, not capable of learning hundreds of professions, and your frail body, not capable of replacing its cells any longer. It requires more than a better way to heat up a corpse to extend life.
I'll leave you with this (paraphrase of a) quote: millions long for immortality, but don't know what to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
I’m amazed that people who argue against immortality often assume it will come with a frail body and an aged brain. Why? To me, the most basic form of immortality is achieved by reversal of aging, including a brain. Your body is just a machine, it’s pretty obvious it can be repaired, even if we don’t know how yet.
> "it’s pretty obvious it can be repaired, even if we don’t know how yet."
Is it obvious? How would you repair a piece of metal suffering metal fatigue? A perished elastic band? A screw with a chewed head? These are trivial things compared to a human body and we haven't a clue how to rejuvenate them, all we can do is replace them. But how do you replace "a muscle" without surgically damaging the tissue around it? How do you keep "muscle memory" after doing so? How do you reconnect your replacement eye to the optic nerve? How do you replace cells like for like when there's tens of trillions of them in each person, and each cell is a machine a hundred trillion atoms complex? How do you target the cellular machinary inside one cell and find out that it's in need of repair? Is it 'pretty obvious' you can do so?
What does it mean to reverse aging? Younger me was smaller. Younger me moved differently. Younger me liked different foods and knew different facts. Younger me didn't have scar tissue in certain places, are you going to swap that out for normal tissue (how)?
It's pretty obvious that 'repair' does not undo the effects of ageing, it prolongs them - restored old cars are not new cars, they still need to be driven gently. People with plastic surgery don't look like young people, they look like old people who fell into uncanny valley.
Is it obvious? How would you repair a piece of metal suffering metal fatigue? A perished elastic band? A screw with a chewed head? These are trivial things compared to a human body and we haven't a clue how to rejuvenate them, all we can do is replace them. But how do you replace "a muscle" without surgically damaging the tissue around it? How do you keep "muscle memory" after doing so? How do you reconnect your replacement eye to the optic nerve? How do you replace cells like for like when there's tens of trillions of them in each person, and each cell is a machine a hundred trillion atoms complex? How do you target the cellular machinary inside one cell and find out that it's in need of repair? Is it 'pretty obvious' you can do so?
What does it mean to reverse aging? Younger me was smaller. Younger me moved differently. Younger me liked different foods and knew different facts. Younger me didn't have scar tissue in certain places, are you going to swap that out for normal tissue (how)?
It's pretty obvious that 'repair' does not undo the effects of ageing, it prolongs them - restored old cars are not new cars, they still need to be driven gently. People with plastic surgery don't look like young people, they look like old people who fell into uncanny valley.
How would you repair a piece of metal ... how do you replace "a muscle"
The huge difference between repairing a piece of metal, and repairing a living tissue, is, obviously, the living tissue can repair itself. The mechanisms of self-repair are built in, and they are extremely effective. The problem is these mechanisms break down with age, so the task becomes figuring out how to re-enable them. Yes, we don't know how to do that yet, but keep in mind - just 10 years ago we didn't know how to do things like CRISPR gene editing and now we can do something like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-63859184. The point is, we are making progress towards the goal of controlling all the processes in our bodies. There's absolutely no reason to believe this progress will stop any time soon. Even if we can't do it today, things like organ or limb regeneration do not sound like science fiction any more, it's a question of when, not if.
Yes, it's quite likely every one of us Millennials will grow old and die, but I'm much less sure about our kids, and our grand kids will most likely be able to stay forever young if they so desire.
The huge difference between repairing a piece of metal, and repairing a living tissue, is, obviously, the living tissue can repair itself. The mechanisms of self-repair are built in, and they are extremely effective. The problem is these mechanisms break down with age, so the task becomes figuring out how to re-enable them. Yes, we don't know how to do that yet, but keep in mind - just 10 years ago we didn't know how to do things like CRISPR gene editing and now we can do something like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-63859184. The point is, we are making progress towards the goal of controlling all the processes in our bodies. There's absolutely no reason to believe this progress will stop any time soon. Even if we can't do it today, things like organ or limb regeneration do not sound like science fiction any more, it's a question of when, not if.
Yes, it's quite likely every one of us Millennials will grow old and die, but I'm much less sure about our kids, and our grand kids will most likely be able to stay forever young if they so desire.
> even if we don’t know how yet
How would you fix your brain? Its capacity is obviously limited, and tinkering with plasticity almost certainly will have unexpected and undesirable consequences. You simply won't be the same person.
How would you fix your brain? Its capacity is obviously limited, and tinkering with plasticity almost certainly will have unexpected and undesirable consequences. You simply won't be the same person.
I'm not the same person I was a couple of decades ago and will be a different person in a couple of decades. I'm happy with this.
Then why not be happy dying and letting a different person exist in a different body?
Universe is a pretty big place, there's enough room for everyone. Virtual world is even bigger if you decide to move there, and I expect many people will.
Or even it could literally become a machine, potentially with some downsides initially- eq the new parts don't self-regnerate but can be trivially swapped out or repaired.
That's just an opinion, formed over centuries of humans trying to make peace with their mortality, because they believed it was inevitable. There's no inherent truth to your words; it's just a philosophy.
I'm not really afraid of dying, per se, but as a sci-fi buff, I am deeply sad that there are amazing technological advancements that I will never get to see. Even if the world 300 years from now (assuming humans still exist by then) looks nothing like what any sci-fi author could have envisioned, it still bums me out that I won't get to see what that ends up being like. (And yes, I've considered the possibility that things could be much much worse than now in 300 years, at least for humans.) My only worry about this is that if I were "asleep" for 300 years, that "stranger in a strange land" bit could be very real, and I don't know that humans are well-equipped psychologically to deal with that kind of... dislocation.
I'm not religious, and don't believe in an afterlife, reincarnation, or of anything after we die. So if I want to see the future, in any shape or form, life extension is the only way. I doubt medicine will solve aging and mortality in my lifetime, so even a moonshot like cryonics would likely be my only hope -- even such a remote hope -- of seeing the future. Not sure I'd actually go for it, though, but I get the appeal.
I'm not really afraid of dying, per se, but as a sci-fi buff, I am deeply sad that there are amazing technological advancements that I will never get to see. Even if the world 300 years from now (assuming humans still exist by then) looks nothing like what any sci-fi author could have envisioned, it still bums me out that I won't get to see what that ends up being like. (And yes, I've considered the possibility that things could be much much worse than now in 300 years, at least for humans.) My only worry about this is that if I were "asleep" for 300 years, that "stranger in a strange land" bit could be very real, and I don't know that humans are well-equipped psychologically to deal with that kind of... dislocation.
I'm not religious, and don't believe in an afterlife, reincarnation, or of anything after we die. So if I want to see the future, in any shape or form, life extension is the only way. I doubt medicine will solve aging and mortality in my lifetime, so even a moonshot like cryonics would likely be my only hope -- even such a remote hope -- of seeing the future. Not sure I'd actually go for it, though, but I get the appeal.
I used to have the same curiosity, but now I just want to see our daughter grow up and maybe get grandkids someday. Having a kid really changed my perspective in life.
Stranger in a strange land also sounds incredibly exciting to me. Funny how a con ist pro argument depending on your view point.
You can have this now, no need to wait for death since the plot is mostly about culture, not technology. Seems to me that many die without even having scratched the surface of life. Of course, there is this wish for an afterlife or future re-awakening in many. It's natural to want more.
I'm registered with a cryonics company to be frozen after death on a rare chance that it actually works.
My reasoning is that I simply like living. I think that arguments against longevity often sound deep, but if you rephrase them in more straightforward terms, they'll seem completely devoid of substance.
For example, what does "we're children of our times mean?" That once world changes too much, death is preferable to adapting? I would absolutely love to see how the world will look in a hundred years, and I sincerely hope it will be strange and unique.
Same with "death will simply take us back to where we came from"... I'm sorry, but it doesn't really mean anything. If my loved one dies, that's bad. If my friend gets sick, I hope they recover. Again, I'm sorry but once we strip the poetics, there's really nothing left here.
My reasoning is that I simply like living. I think that arguments against longevity often sound deep, but if you rephrase them in more straightforward terms, they'll seem completely devoid of substance.
For example, what does "we're children of our times mean?" That once world changes too much, death is preferable to adapting? I would absolutely love to see how the world will look in a hundred years, and I sincerely hope it will be strange and unique.
Same with "death will simply take us back to where we came from"... I'm sorry, but it doesn't really mean anything. If my loved one dies, that's bad. If my friend gets sick, I hope they recover. Again, I'm sorry but once we strip the poetics, there's really nothing left here.
I think about it this way, although i dont have the money to sign up yet.(and don't want to do a rate plan while being young).
Basically every religion has some hope of afterlife/reincarnation. So for non religious people this also kinda provides this hope. And if it doesnt work out it is just a expensive funeral. If your dead body is burned, frozen or buried doesnt really matter in this case.
Basically every religion has some hope of afterlife/reincarnation. So for non religious people this also kinda provides this hope. And if it doesnt work out it is just a expensive funeral. If your dead body is burned, frozen or buried doesnt really matter in this case.
If you're in Europe – I'm signed with Tomorrow Biostasis (https://www.tomorrow.bio) and the pricing is not as bad as I expected when I initially started thinking about it.
Didnt look too much into it but my gut feeling based on the price says its too cheap to be able to keep the lights on for centuries.
I would rather do a one time payment because they sure wont get money from me when i am dead. So a one time payment must basically be big enough to generate enough interest/stock market returns to make it worth their while too keep the lights on forever. I dont see this with a 50€ Subscription. Maybe they would do it like an ETF Investment Account which signs you up for Cyro Preservation after reaching a certain size. The money would have to be withdrawable while being alive though.
I would rather do a one time payment because they sure wont get money from me when i am dead. So a one time payment must basically be big enough to generate enough interest/stock market returns to make it worth their while too keep the lights on forever. I dont see this with a 50€ Subscription. Maybe they would do it like an ETF Investment Account which signs you up for Cyro Preservation after reaching a certain size. The money would have to be withdrawable while being alive though.
It works through a life insurance. So it's not just the subscription.
Besides that, as far as I understand, cryonics is heavily dependent on effects of scale. My hope is that by the time I'm about to get frozen, enough people will be interested in it to make it economically viable long term.
Besides that, as far as I understand, cryonics is heavily dependent on effects of scale. My hope is that by the time I'm about to get frozen, enough people will be interested in it to make it economically viable long term.
I've heard this sentiment occasionally and I've actually done some introspection about it. What's the earliest time of human history I'd have to be born in, to feel alien in our times? There's actually a surprising answer to this, and it's not even subjective: there is a lot more difference between my grandparent's house in the countryside 40 years ago and current times, than to pretty much any agricultural period. No running water, outhouse was... out, no TV. And in _their_ childhood it was even more barebones: no electricity, phone or radio, nor cars or trains or asphalt.
So... would my grandparents feel alienated now? Hell no! My surviving grandma is complaining about constant pain and ailing vision, not that things are too strange. She needs somebody else to call me or show her pictures I send on whatsapp because she can't physically use a phone anymore, not because she can't adapt to it.
There is some truth in what you're saying, but it's due to something we don't like to talk or think about: dementia. Not just Alzheimer, but dozens of ways the aging brain is deteriorating. Fix that, and suddenly you'll find out that old people aren't children anymore, and are perfectly capable of adapting to the new.
So... would my grandparents feel alienated now? Hell no! My surviving grandma is complaining about constant pain and ailing vision, not that things are too strange. She needs somebody else to call me or show her pictures I send on whatsapp because she can't physically use a phone anymore, not because she can't adapt to it.
There is some truth in what you're saying, but it's due to something we don't like to talk or think about: dementia. Not just Alzheimer, but dozens of ways the aging brain is deteriorating. Fix that, and suddenly you'll find out that old people aren't children anymore, and are perfectly capable of adapting to the new.
I for one would like a bit more time. 200? Maybe 500? No one likely wants to be immortal but 80 or so seems criminally short for what our abilities are and how long it takes for us to find our calling.
I want to be immortal. If I ever tire of existence and achieve terminal boredom, I'll just use technology to forget (temporarily or permanently) some memories and experience them again anew.
I'll see you all at the heat death of the universe.
I'll see you all at the heat death of the universe.
If you like that premise, you'd like to read "The Golden Age" by John C. Wright. It's hard scifi.
Thanks!
Somewhere between 10,000 years and 100,000 years seems like the right amount to live as a human being and die with absolutely no regrets. Dying as a 257 years old you can still imagine feeling some resentment for the future beyond you: what will they discover, how will the music sound. But dying as a 84,751 years old, after an incomprehensible amount of sensory data, inner and outer experiences, concepts, technologies, maybe even a bit of interstellar exploration, feels just natural.
Therefore, no, we should not search for immortality, Terra will be unliveable for carbon-based organisms in 1 billion years [1], but we should look for mechanisms to preserve a somewhat trivial metabolism of ~50-90 kg of mass for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
[1] "1.2 billion years [from now], high estimate until all plant life dies out [...] rising temperatures will make any animal life unsustainable from this point on" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Ear...
Therefore, no, we should not search for immortality, Terra will be unliveable for carbon-based organisms in 1 billion years [1], but we should look for mechanisms to preserve a somewhat trivial metabolism of ~50-90 kg of mass for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
[1] "1.2 billion years [from now], high estimate until all plant life dies out [...] rising temperatures will make any animal life unsustainable from this point on" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future#Ear...
I’m just being reasonable here. It’s _possible_ I might find life that’s thousands of years long interesting, but it’s beyond my current imagination. I’ll be perfectly happy with doubling my lifetime (tripling my productive life?). as a biologist, that sounds more reasonable anyway.
Jeanne Louise Calment lived 122 years and 164 days [1]. Doubling the lifespan, 240+ years, is most certainly not possible, not reasonable, using diets, exercises, and so forth: if it were such a low hanging fruit, we would have already been there. Even if we could push the body using current technology, no one will want to live 100+ years (from age 70 to 160+) as an old person, being in pain constantly, fighting all kinds of cancers.
Therefore, the only way I can see a lifespan push, not only x2, but x10, or even x100 (10,000 years—once you get x3/x4, it probably scales trivially) is through 100% organ regeneration and 100% programmatic control over the morphospace. Broke an arm? Amputate the limb and grow another one back, your cells already did it before. Liver cancer? Regrow another liver. Heart issues? Make another heart. Spend all the years above 35 as a perpetual 35 year old, eventually in the bodyshape of Chris Hemsworth/Margot Robbie (to keep the examples in Australia). This scientific fancy is somehow grounded in the mind-expanding perspectives coming from Dr. Michael Levin's lab [2]. Personally, I'm compelled enough by their thesis, programmatic control over cells, that I started learning about their work, BETSE, Bio Electric Tissue Simulation Engine [3], and try to build on top a BioElectric Simulation Orchestrator, BESO [4]. Most probably, however, we won't see 100% human organ regeneration in our regular lifetimes, but never say never.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
[2] Speaking with Cells: the Electrical Future of Regenerative Medicine with Dr. Michael Levin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGaakopAKU
[3] https://github.com/betsee/betse
[4] https://github.com/daysful/beso
Therefore, the only way I can see a lifespan push, not only x2, but x10, or even x100 (10,000 years—once you get x3/x4, it probably scales trivially) is through 100% organ regeneration and 100% programmatic control over the morphospace. Broke an arm? Amputate the limb and grow another one back, your cells already did it before. Liver cancer? Regrow another liver. Heart issues? Make another heart. Spend all the years above 35 as a perpetual 35 year old, eventually in the bodyshape of Chris Hemsworth/Margot Robbie (to keep the examples in Australia). This scientific fancy is somehow grounded in the mind-expanding perspectives coming from Dr. Michael Levin's lab [2]. Personally, I'm compelled enough by their thesis, programmatic control over cells, that I started learning about their work, BETSE, Bio Electric Tissue Simulation Engine [3], and try to build on top a BioElectric Simulation Orchestrator, BESO [4]. Most probably, however, we won't see 100% human organ regeneration in our regular lifetimes, but never say never.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
[2] Speaking with Cells: the Electrical Future of Regenerative Medicine with Dr. Michael Levin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzGaakopAKU
[3] https://github.com/betsee/betse
[4] https://github.com/daysful/beso
You’re right we can push beyond that limit or even there (assuming that person actually lived that long, look up the controversy) with just diet or the biology we know today. But as you point that’s nothing fundamentally problematic with the idea of our body being viable for hundreds of years with the right support. So I’m hopeful.
You may find this organization (working on extending healthy human lifespan) interesting. https://www.levf.org/
I'm not involved with that organization, but I find their work very interesting.
As a backup plan, there's Alcor. https://www.alcor.org/
I'm not involved with that organization, but I find their work very interesting.
As a backup plan, there's Alcor. https://www.alcor.org/
As much as I’d like to live forever, I couldn’t in good conscience monetarily support research that’s explicitly focused on extending the life span of the privileged (including me) when more resources are needed in finding how to lift up everyone else left behind today.
It doesn't seem that life extension is going to be unreachable for the majority of the people. Look at what happened with DNA sequencing. Anyone can get their DNA sequenced today (yeah, I know some people in very poor countries can't afford it because they don't even have food but hey, you had breakfast today). Comparing with the human genome project, the target price of most drugs that are in clinical trials today is ridiculously low. And it has to be that way because investors wouldn't be interested in those companies. As a biotech/longevity company, you need a reasonable plan on how to market and sell your research. "Immortality is only for the rich" is cyberpunk science fiction.
Would it not be reasonable to assume that the first anti-aging therapies that are approved will go to the privleged? Then they would be commodified and provided to the less economically fortunate.
The first monoclonal antibody therapy hit markets decades ago. It still hasn’t percolated to even the middle class in countries like india.
If a drug or therapy truly does extend life span I can also see systems forming where the few want to keep it to themselves and away from the many. One way or another I can’t imagine this being the the top priority of anyone but the most vain (personal opinion) so I would not associate myself with such research is all.
If a drug or therapy truly does extend life span I can also see systems forming where the few want to keep it to themselves and away from the many. One way or another I can’t imagine this being the the top priority of anyone but the most vain (personal opinion) so I would not associate myself with such research is all.
Whenever we find the way to immortality, it will be exclusive to the richest of the rich at first.
But equally inevitable, it will eventually trickle down to all. The business will be just to good.
There are many arguments for longevity, even if it were temporarily for the rich, or those in advanced economies.
For example, people who live much longer would probably think about the environment on longer time scales. That includes climate change, pollution, resource exhaustion, and so on. They might consider helping to improve their society, because even if it took several generations they might live to see the benefits.
People who live longer can afford to make better long term investments, instead of trying to cash in on short get rich quick schemes.
They might take better care of their health, knowing that they're not just risking the usually healthy 20s-60s range, but a 20s-200s range, when doing risky activities. Those risky activities sometimes affect others.
People may care to invest in research to cure other diseases because more people will live long enough to suffer from them.
And so on...
For example, people who live much longer would probably think about the environment on longer time scales. That includes climate change, pollution, resource exhaustion, and so on. They might consider helping to improve their society, because even if it took several generations they might live to see the benefits.
People who live longer can afford to make better long term investments, instead of trying to cash in on short get rich quick schemes.
They might take better care of their health, knowing that they're not just risking the usually healthy 20s-60s range, but a 20s-200s range, when doing risky activities. Those risky activities sometimes affect others.
People may care to invest in research to cure other diseases because more people will live long enough to suffer from them.
And so on...
Do you give half your income to the top Give Well charities too?
Honestly this seems like a better use of resources than a holiday or a new TV.
Honestly this seems like a better use of resources than a holiday or a new TV.
I actually have not spent more than 25% of my income, yes, and have actually started researching starting my own institution. Where I hope to put the majority of my income and money made. I feel like NGOs have a cancer where CEOs are paid millions to increase fund raising with the actual “doing good” part being at best an after thought. Give well is awesome but I didn’t find a single charity I could believe in (I’d rather help orphans, victims of domestic abuse and if possible, help victims of human trafficking. Tall order but also paradoxically not in GiveWells docket apparently).
I am signed up with Alcor, and I’m well aware of Aubrey’s work, thank you!
I personally think we need better tooling. We need atomically precise manufacturing, so as to create medical interventions on the smallest scale.
To this end I hope to be launching a molecular nanotechnology startup in the near future.
I personally think we need better tooling. We need atomically precise manufacturing, so as to create medical interventions on the smallest scale.
To this end I hope to be launching a molecular nanotechnology startup in the near future.
I think 100 is quite enough -- life is meant to be lived with people one knows.
You’re always free to take the quick way out. Don’t be so quick to condemn 8 billion other humans to the same short lifetime just because you can’t imagine living longer.
That's very rude.
Advocating that others should not be allowed to live is beyond rude.
Nipping a fantasy =/= killing people
Asking people to "take the quick way out", though, IS asking someone to kill himself for having an opinion you don't seem to like.
Asking people to "take the quick way out", though, IS asking someone to kill himself for having an opinion you don't seem to like.
Ok you very much misunderstood. I was saying that nobody would be forced to live forever: assisted suicide would always be an option for those who tore of life.
> assisted suicide
looks like I didn't misunderstand at all.
looks like I didn't misunderstand at all.
It's all about perspective. From where you are, 100 seems enough. For a 7 year old, 42 seems enough. But if could die tomorrow and you'd be offered the chance to live another day, you'd probably take it. And then the next day, and then the next. And days will become months and months will become years and so on and so forth.
I'm a fourth of the way in. Your outlook is fully alien to me. We die when we die. This struggle for X more years of life is at best vain.
Not a fan of lone immigrants then?
I don't think lone immigrants would immigrate if they had to cut contact with people they knew.
It's also a big difference in outlook -- people that would scoff at life extension would also be the people ready to "end" something in life, and not constantly be at the teat of something. For example, young soldiers in WW1. That sort of outlook is alien to most now, modernity's pit of comfort makes a fool of anyone who partakes.
It's also a big difference in outlook -- people that would scoff at life extension would also be the people ready to "end" something in life, and not constantly be at the teat of something. For example, young soldiers in WW1. That sort of outlook is alien to most now, modernity's pit of comfort makes a fool of anyone who partakes.
If others do the same, you could spent more time with people you know than you can now!
I'm no believer in immortality, but I find your argument unconvincing. People are removed from their childhood home all the time, immersed in a foreign culture. They survive. I'd certainly accept a sudden relocation to an unfamiliar foreign land vs. dying. And I'm certain that a hypothetical resurrected human wouldn't be the only one - what's to say these folks wouldn't form their own pocket of culture?
The problem with death and aging in its current form is that it's non-consensual. Of course there will be people who would like to expire, and of course they will always be able to do so — the same way today someone who was diagnosed with a bacterial infection can refuse to take antibiotics and die exactly like everyone did in the 19th century.
It sickens me when people romanticize death. There's nothing romantic about the world being taken away from you at the time when you've understood so much of it and found your place in it — and could have contributed so much more to it, and enjoyed it so much more. It's an artificial limit imposed on us by the nature that needs to be fought with all available resources. It should definitely not be accepted.
It's about time humanity stops being humble about this stuff, ffs.
It sickens me when people romanticize death. There's nothing romantic about the world being taken away from you at the time when you've understood so much of it and found your place in it — and could have contributed so much more to it, and enjoyed it so much more. It's an artificial limit imposed on us by the nature that needs to be fought with all available resources. It should definitely not be accepted.
It's about time humanity stops being humble about this stuff, ffs.
Attitudes are quite inconsistent even then. The same people who romanticize the death of the old will often be appalled by the idea of people being able to choose their own death at any point in their life
Then also, if someone is ill, they will never refuse treatment if one is available — regardless of their views on death. Even if their condition is terminal, they'll do everything in their power to stretch out their remaining time as much as they could before ultimately giving up, for as long as it's physically bearable for them.
So one might say that there's a degree of hypocrisy in such views. They romanticize death unless it's their turn.
So one might say that there's a degree of hypocrisy in such views. They romanticize death unless it's their turn.
> Death will simply takes us back to where we came from before our birth.
I prefer existing and being conscious to not existing, everything else is just details.
The finality of death is perhaps the only thing that human beings should be truly afraid of and treat as an engineering/biology problem to be solved as soon as possible, the other details and impact of this should be addressed later.
This complacence with the status quo is harmful in that regard.
Even if you don't want immortality, not having the last decades of your life being trapped in a decaying flesh prison while your brain and organs are riddled with various diseases does sound like how things should be. Even if aging cannot be eliminated entirely (for now), its effects definitely should be lessened, so people can live out their lives respectfully and comfortably, what modern medicine is very gradually advancing towards.
Cryogenics just acknowledge that focusing on this to the point of beating aging altogether is unlikely and that we're all born in the wrong time and come to the conclusion that maybe 1% chance at survival is better than 0%. Most if not all will sadly not survive.
I prefer existing and being conscious to not existing, everything else is just details.
The finality of death is perhaps the only thing that human beings should be truly afraid of and treat as an engineering/biology problem to be solved as soon as possible, the other details and impact of this should be addressed later.
This complacence with the status quo is harmful in that regard.
Even if you don't want immortality, not having the last decades of your life being trapped in a decaying flesh prison while your brain and organs are riddled with various diseases does sound like how things should be. Even if aging cannot be eliminated entirely (for now), its effects definitely should be lessened, so people can live out their lives respectfully and comfortably, what modern medicine is very gradually advancing towards.
Cryogenics just acknowledge that focusing on this to the point of beating aging altogether is unlikely and that we're all born in the wrong time and come to the conclusion that maybe 1% chance at survival is better than 0%. Most if not all will sadly not survive.
Four years ago, I moved to a different continent with a totally different culture. After four years, I love living here more than in my home country where I grew up. So your argument isn’t really convincing.
Classic Terror Management Theory: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
IMHO this is a generally benefitial viewpoint in life, except when specifically discussing mortality.
IMHO this is a generally benefitial viewpoint in life, except when specifically discussing mortality.
Very interesting Wiki article, thank you very much for sharing!
> When our time passes, we will live as strangers in a strange land, drowning in the sea of nostalgia.
This is not really convincing argument. If and when that happens and I find it so inconvenient that it is not worth continuing I shall end my life on my own terms.
> Death will simply takes us back to where we came from before our birth.
Nah. We don’t “go” anywhere after we die. This is simply propaganda invented and formulated to get people over their fear of death. It has zero basis in reality other than the fact that people want it.
This is not really convincing argument. If and when that happens and I find it so inconvenient that it is not worth continuing I shall end my life on my own terms.
> Death will simply takes us back to where we came from before our birth.
Nah. We don’t “go” anywhere after we die. This is simply propaganda invented and formulated to get people over their fear of death. It has zero basis in reality other than the fact that people want it.
You're right that we're not "built" for immortality, but I see no reason why we couldn't adapt over time. The other issue is that aging is really really bad and reduces quality of life much more than nostalgia.
Strange, my POV is completely different. Humans can adapt to everything, look at those native tribes in Brazil.
I am certain that once humanity fully decrypted its own genes, immortality will arrive with all the implications one can‘t now even imagine.
I also believe that this discovery was inevitable, it is literally in our genes and was already waiting to be discovered when the first stone tool has been made .
Immortality is the destiny of this species. It will transform everything, altough I’m not sure it would all be good. Unfortunately, chances are that I won‘t live long enough to see, unless cryo. A minimal chance that it would work, but better than no chance at all…and I would die -well rather not die- to see how everything continues. The world now is different than the world when I was born, it‘s constantly changing in small and big ways and I‘d love to see it.
One day, the white house will look like the forum romanum.
I understand it, even if I think it is a bit silly and probably evidence of a mental sickness. The survival instinct is an important one for getting life to where it is.
Problem I have with immortalists isn't that they have some desire to live forever, it's that they rarely are able to articulate what lives forever. Self is a construct, an narrative abstraction created by our minds that has utility as regards our functioning in the world, but is ultimately not real. I am not the same person I was 5 years ago, nor will the version of me that exists 5 years from now be the same as me. There are probably several people out there who are more like 5-years-ago me than I am currently, but for some reason they aren't considered to be the same person.
What is it that makes me me? It can't be memory, because memories are extremely fallible, and often confabulated. If we are our memories then we have forgotten most of who we are and will continue to forget ourselves as time passes. If you erased my memories somehow, you'd still likely consider me the same person anyway, so clearly memories aren't me.
Of course, even forgotten experiences leave some kind of mark on our being, but just by existing we leave our mark on the people and world around us but we don't consider those things us, do we?
And clearly anyone who imagines a digital-self in their future doesn't consider their physical form to be them either, so what's left? Illusions and abstractions, a heuristic notion of self that has utility but not reality.
Sure, go ahead and solve "immortality", I don't have a philosophical objection to the concept. What I have a problem with is the insistence that death is some kind of fundamental evil we must place a high priority on solving. Some would go so far as to preserve their own lives at the cost of many others, so terrified they are of something that has basically already happened to previous versions of themselves. Its perverse.
Problem I have with immortalists isn't that they have some desire to live forever, it's that they rarely are able to articulate what lives forever. Self is a construct, an narrative abstraction created by our minds that has utility as regards our functioning in the world, but is ultimately not real. I am not the same person I was 5 years ago, nor will the version of me that exists 5 years from now be the same as me. There are probably several people out there who are more like 5-years-ago me than I am currently, but for some reason they aren't considered to be the same person.
What is it that makes me me? It can't be memory, because memories are extremely fallible, and often confabulated. If we are our memories then we have forgotten most of who we are and will continue to forget ourselves as time passes. If you erased my memories somehow, you'd still likely consider me the same person anyway, so clearly memories aren't me.
Of course, even forgotten experiences leave some kind of mark on our being, but just by existing we leave our mark on the people and world around us but we don't consider those things us, do we?
And clearly anyone who imagines a digital-self in their future doesn't consider their physical form to be them either, so what's left? Illusions and abstractions, a heuristic notion of self that has utility but not reality.
Sure, go ahead and solve "immortality", I don't have a philosophical objection to the concept. What I have a problem with is the insistence that death is some kind of fundamental evil we must place a high priority on solving. Some would go so far as to preserve their own lives at the cost of many others, so terrified they are of something that has basically already happened to previous versions of themselves. Its perverse.
If I don't want to die now why should I want to die later?
> Death will simply takes us back to where we came from before our birth.
Except it doesn't. Death is the end of everything for you. It's ultimate loss of any game you might have participated in. And there's nothing else. When you die then there's no longer any you. And there will never be you in any shape or form. When you die it's as if your family home burnt to ashes along with your family inside and family business and there not even any cinder left. What was there doesn't exist anymore.
Once you actually understand death without the layer of culture that we built to distract ourselves from the reality there's really no wonder why some people would take any chances to avoid it in any way conceivable.
Except it doesn't. Death is the end of everything for you. It's ultimate loss of any game you might have participated in. And there's nothing else. When you die then there's no longer any you. And there will never be you in any shape or form. When you die it's as if your family home burnt to ashes along with your family inside and family business and there not even any cinder left. What was there doesn't exist anymore.
Once you actually understand death without the layer of culture that we built to distract ourselves from the reality there's really no wonder why some people would take any chances to avoid it in any way conceivable.
> Death will simply takes us back to where we came from before our birth.
> Death is the end of everything for you.
Both of you these are objective. You can think you are insignificant or you can think that you are part of the big bang which is still happening. It's just narration and if it makes no practical difference (as it would seem in these cases), everybody can choose whatever makes him feel better, there is no need to put down the other narration.
> Death is the end of everything for you.
Both of you these are objective. You can think you are insignificant or you can think that you are part of the big bang which is still happening. It's just narration and if it makes no practical difference (as it would seem in these cases), everybody can choose whatever makes him feel better, there is no need to put down the other narration.
You can think whatever you want. But in almost all cases you are wrong.
And you can only choose what makes you feel better in matters that don't matter. In all others you are almost always better off choosing what is actually correct.
You can choose a narrative that pi equals 3 because it makes you feel better but you won't be doing world or yourself any favors if you choose to make real world decisions based on that narrative.
And you can only choose what makes you feel better in matters that don't matter. In all others you are almost always better off choosing what is actually correct.
You can choose a narrative that pi equals 3 because it makes you feel better but you won't be doing world or yourself any favors if you choose to make real world decisions based on that narrative.
If you want to be correct, there's hardly any "you" to begin with. Given basic physics, cultural and physical context (whether that's atmosphere and biosphere or 21st century and technolgy), dropping cartesian theatre you will have a hard time finding "you". It's mostly a language construct.
If you want analogy - we are looking on the river and we see a vortex, then it disappears. Parent comment is like - oh, the water is again flowing in the straight flow. And your version is - there was a vortex, and now it's gone forever, nothing left of it.
If you want analogy - we are looking on the river and we see a vortex, then it disappears. Parent comment is like - oh, the water is again flowing in the straight flow. And your version is - there was a vortex, and now it's gone forever, nothing left of it.
Good analogy. However vortex for as long as it exists is not meaningless. It can do things and it's perfectly reasonable that it's in its interest to keep existing so it can keep doing things.
So there is "you" as there is a "vortex". It's not just a language construct. It's a language construct that describes impactful but sadly transient phenomenon.
So there is "you" as there is a "vortex". It's not just a language construct. It's a language construct that describes impactful but sadly transient phenomenon.
And not just that - for those still alive the dead person usually causes quite a bit of suffering! Death is really not a good idea for everyone involved.
I guess it has been portrayed the wrong way for a long time. All fringe ideas get thrown in the same basket. Singularity, anti-aging research, wormholes and interstellar travel, etc. But most research today is trying to solve aging, not death. It's trying to maintain people from getting in that state of frailty and maintain youth for as long as possible. I got interested in longevity a decade ago but only came back to the community this year and the field has evolved quite a lot. I started blogging again about it and I addressed this specific topic: https://www.stanete.com/coming-of-age/.
I never understood that quest either. Is it really so hard to accept that ones existance on earth is finite? Do people really want to stand in the way of the young, forever? I will be happy when I finally can leave this planet.
If you have some time, this is worth a read:
https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon
It’s a nice, short metaphorical story for our acceptance of death.
https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon
It’s a nice, short metaphorical story for our acceptance of death.
> Never understood the quest for immortality.
Me neither, it sounds like a punishment.
> We are the children of our time. When our time passes, we will live as strangers in a strange land, drowning in the sea of nostalgia.
Now here, I disagree. If someone offered me to become displaced in time, being frozen most of the time, but waking up for a few months or a year (assuming I’d not be pennyless on the street) every decade or century, I’d love it until I tire and either retire in the "now" or end my life.
I love that my life will eventually end, I hate that I won’t be able to see everything to come.
Me neither, it sounds like a punishment.
> We are the children of our time. When our time passes, we will live as strangers in a strange land, drowning in the sea of nostalgia.
Now here, I disagree. If someone offered me to become displaced in time, being frozen most of the time, but waking up for a few months or a year (assuming I’d not be pennyless on the street) every decade or century, I’d love it until I tire and either retire in the "now" or end my life.
I love that my life will eventually end, I hate that I won’t be able to see everything to come.
> drowning in the sea of nostalgia
# I LIKE BIG BUTTS AND I CANNOT LIE / YOU OTHA BROTHAS CAN'T DENY...
You can't just sit here in the dark listening to classical music, Fry.
# I LIKE BIG BUTTS AND I CANNOT LIE / YOU OTHA BROTHAS CAN'T DENY...
You can't just sit here in the dark listening to classical music, Fry.
There are definitely reasons to fear the reaper.
When we go return to where we came from before our birth it simply means the absence of consciousness. In this universe, you can either be conscious or not. There is something mysterious and magical about this phenomenon that seemingly differentiates our lives from simpler or even single celled organisms which seem more like biological robots.
It may very well be that the next time a consciousness manifests and forms a 'you' from 'the place before birth' you may as well be born as a cow, shackled in the darkness among feces. Kept from the warmth of your mother with cold metal spikes attached to her udder, ripping open the young flesh of your nose when you seek its nourishment.
How many times did we wake up yet from this 'place before birth'? How likely is it to be born as human among the conscious life forms on Earth? Nevermind being born as healthy human in the developed world in the 21st century.
Between the clear dry science and the mysterious wonder of a perception of 'self' and being consciously aware I just feel dizzy about it all.
When we go return to where we came from before our birth it simply means the absence of consciousness. In this universe, you can either be conscious or not. There is something mysterious and magical about this phenomenon that seemingly differentiates our lives from simpler or even single celled organisms which seem more like biological robots.
It may very well be that the next time a consciousness manifests and forms a 'you' from 'the place before birth' you may as well be born as a cow, shackled in the darkness among feces. Kept from the warmth of your mother with cold metal spikes attached to her udder, ripping open the young flesh of your nose when you seek its nourishment.
How many times did we wake up yet from this 'place before birth'? How likely is it to be born as human among the conscious life forms on Earth? Nevermind being born as healthy human in the developed world in the 21st century.
Between the clear dry science and the mysterious wonder of a perception of 'self' and being consciously aware I just feel dizzy about it all.
I think you use the word "consciousness" as a thought stopper.
A though experiment: Imagine I have no consciousness, but I can run circles around you, outperform you, outpredict you, game you, have a better intuition (gasp), or be more creative (gasp squared). What's left of the magic now?
A though experiment: Imagine I have no consciousness, but I can run circles around you, outperform you, outpredict you, game you, have a better intuition (gasp), or be more creative (gasp squared). What's left of the magic now?
Interesting point, this is why I love these discussions so first of all thank you.
When we strip away all of these aspects from 'the magic' it gets really interesting to think about what's left. And this is always where it becomes hard to articulate for me. Would you describe yourself as a robot performing a set of finite predetermined tasks? A system merely responding to pattern recognition? Are we just a more complex version of ants following some chemical impulses?
I cannot shake the feeling that it's more of a 1+1=3 kind of thing, where the sum is more than the addition of parts. In Complex Systems Theory it would be emergent behavior, I suppose.
When we strip away all of these aspects from 'the magic' it gets really interesting to think about what's left. And this is always where it becomes hard to articulate for me. Would you describe yourself as a robot performing a set of finite predetermined tasks? A system merely responding to pattern recognition? Are we just a more complex version of ants following some chemical impulses?
I cannot shake the feeling that it's more of a 1+1=3 kind of thing, where the sum is more than the addition of parts. In Complex Systems Theory it would be emergent behavior, I suppose.
> it becomes hard to articulate
I read you. What I find helpful is not to trust my own internal perspective on how I think I think. Things become much clearer when I consider more neutral ground, yes, ants, chatgpts, rocks, etc.
So, yes, I still wonder what would be the advantage of a conscious ant, besides hubris.
> Are we just a more complex version of ants
The same evolution caused humans and ants, that's all. Oak is not a version of orca.
> emergent behavior
This time it's a canonical thought stopper, on the level of "idiopathic disease".
I read you. What I find helpful is not to trust my own internal perspective on how I think I think. Things become much clearer when I consider more neutral ground, yes, ants, chatgpts, rocks, etc.
So, yes, I still wonder what would be the advantage of a conscious ant, besides hubris.
> Are we just a more complex version of ants
The same evolution caused humans and ants, that's all. Oak is not a version of orca.
> emergent behavior
This time it's a canonical thought stopper, on the level of "idiopathic disease".
Maybe not immortality but living longer isn't what it's all about?
Before we were dying in our 20s, then in our 30s, then in our 60s, now in our 80s. Perhaps in 200 years we could say we die in our 120s? That would be a good thing (and no, this doesn't mean to live the years between 90 and 120 in the worst conditions possible, barely able to walk, eat, talk...; it means to extend our good years and make the 110-120 just like our current 80-90).
I myself am in my 40s but I look younger than many people in their late 20s/early 30s (mainly because I don't smoke, and I don't eat crap. I excerise regularly and sleep a lot). Some celebrities right now in their 50s look younger than many regular people in their 30s. So, I think there is hope for future generations to extend their lives by a lot.
Before we were dying in our 20s, then in our 30s, then in our 60s, now in our 80s. Perhaps in 200 years we could say we die in our 120s? That would be a good thing (and no, this doesn't mean to live the years between 90 and 120 in the worst conditions possible, barely able to walk, eat, talk...; it means to extend our good years and make the 110-120 just like our current 80-90).
I myself am in my 40s but I look younger than many people in their late 20s/early 30s (mainly because I don't smoke, and I don't eat crap. I excerise regularly and sleep a lot). Some celebrities right now in their 50s look younger than many regular people in their 30s. So, I think there is hope for future generations to extend their lives by a lot.
[deleted]
Is there such a thing as nostalgia for the future? Because I'm sure I experience it just as much as for the past, especially with how much the world changes decade to decade in current times, it's just too interesting to watch.
I felt this way many times. The desire to see everything that will come, to experience it all. Being nostalgic for the future also implies that we're optimistic about what's to come.
Maybe immortality is a requirement for space travel?
With the 78 years avg that we currently have we won't get far unless we bend spacetime.
If everyone lives forever, time becomes meaningless.
If we could manage to build a spacecraft that could continuously accelerate at 1g. It would, from the perspective of the inhabitants on the ship, be possible to travel to the end of the edge of the visible universe and back in 100 years, even though billions of years would have passed on earth. Relativity is weird.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_under_constant_ac...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_under_constant_ac...
note that a spacecraft which can continuously accelerate at 1g would require an insane amount of energy. Relativity is indeed weird.
That seems like a severe lack of imagination/empathy on your part. Others won't be "drowning in the sea of nostalgia" because they didn't find the past enjoyable.
> When our time passes, we will live as strangers in a strange land, drowning in the sea of nostalgia.
I feel like that now, in my, ahem, later years, and watching the 20-somethings tie themselves in knots over things, that are actually quite trivial. Friends and family are important, social media not so much. I don't really get it. When I was that age, and I was angry, it took a bit of effort. I'd have to cut the letters out of newspapers, glue them to a bit of paper, and post it to people.
I feel like that now, in my, ahem, later years, and watching the 20-somethings tie themselves in knots over things, that are actually quite trivial. Friends and family are important, social media not so much. I don't really get it. When I was that age, and I was angry, it took a bit of effort. I'd have to cut the letters out of newspapers, glue them to a bit of paper, and post it to people.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You say that, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I believe that everyone is gripped by panic when they know they're about to die. I don't care how enlightened you are, we all fear death above all else. That, I think, is the root of the desire for immortality.
The only really pleasant, anxiety-free way to die is to not see it coming. We should wish for that rather than wish for immortality.
The only really pleasant, anxiety-free way to die is to not see it coming. We should wish for that rather than wish for immortality.
Immortality is a strong word. I am personally in favour of a situation where death would feel more like a choice and not like something which can come at any time or after a (not very) long road of mental and physical decline and loss.
The amount of all forms of suffering and sadness this would lift seems hard to describe in a few paragraphs.
The amount of all forms of suffering and sadness this would lift seems hard to describe in a few paragraphs.
I am 30, and I already feel alien as a millennial. We did not become immortal, but the contents of our lives have already become bigger than what previous generations experienced in their lifetimes.
We are already there. We already face this challenge. We will overcome it before immortality. Immortality will be just the next step.
We are already there. We already face this challenge. We will overcome it before immortality. Immortality will be just the next step.
> Never understood the quest for immortality.
Self-preservation, this is hardwired into us. You may rationalize, refer to a higher power, philosophize, etc... to make you accept the inevitable, sometimes successfully, but that's not what your body is telling you.
Self-preservation, this is hardwired into us. You may rationalize, refer to a higher power, philosophize, etc... to make you accept the inevitable, sometimes successfully, but that's not what your body is telling you.
[deleted]
I've lived as a stranger in a strange land and I regret returning 'home', whatever that means. Sounds like cryo is right up my alley! If it only worked...
Can you please elaborate on why your regret returning home?
Moving abroad and making some sort of life for yourself is two things: 1. a review of your preconceptions and a test for your ability to adapt, 2. if you stick it out, you may integrate new ways and viewpoints into who you are and what you think.
When you then go back to people who are similar (because that's always going to be the case to some extent, even if locally the community feels and/or thinks itself diverse) you will frequently feel that others have not 'progressed' or are 'stuck' in those culturally determined ways. It's hard to share that growth with people that haven't done the same, which is I think why expats stick together, even when they're back.
I moved between Western countries I should perhaps add.
When you then go back to people who are similar (because that's always going to be the case to some extent, even if locally the community feels and/or thinks itself diverse) you will frequently feel that others have not 'progressed' or are 'stuck' in those culturally determined ways. It's hard to share that growth with people that haven't done the same, which is I think why expats stick together, even when they're back.
I moved between Western countries I should perhaps add.
I’m not the person you replied to, but for many of us “home” is not a first world or Western country. The opportunities there are much fewer, quality of life is lower in many tangible ways - do you like having reliable power, internet, mail/shipping, safe roads? Dangerous crime is a much more serious problem, and corruption is rife. Healthcare is subpar if you’re not wealthy. Education is generally poor, which has all sorts of consequences for society as a whole.
There’s also the fact that after living elsewhere for many years, the home you go back to is not the same as the home you left.
There’s also the fact that after living elsewhere for many years, the home you go back to is not the same as the home you left.
The older i get, the more i get the clining to "immortal" structures, like cathedrals and monuments. They are the only thing constant in the sea of change.
Simple, but wonderful words.
The goal of life isn't to live forever, but to create something that is.
I'm not sure why someone would even try and live forever, to fulfill ambitions?
Assuming someone is immortal, after 100 years they'd probably get bored of this world.
The goal of life is whatever each individual has decided the goal of life is. You may not get why someone might want to live forever, but that doesn't invalidate that desire; it just makes you unable to see their point of view. That's ok, though!
I think 100 years is far too short to experience everything our world has to offer. I get that motivation could be an issue for some, but a motivated individual would certainly appreciate extra time to broaden their experiences!
I think 100 years is far too short to experience everything our world has to offer. I get that motivation could be an issue for some, but a motivated individual would certainly appreciate extra time to broaden their experiences!
if that was a concern we'd all kill ourselves at 30
5 sentences, 0 semantic value.
unfortunate that the author didn't bother to distinguish between the effects of state-of-the-art cryopreservation by vitrification and the older cryopreservation procedures that produced the massive fracture damages they mention
an awful lot of the article seems to be about how weird it is for people to study things carefully and try to do things that are not known to be possible, with the implicit subtext that being weird is bad
abandoning that ideology is how we got the industrial revolution and modern civilization, but unfortunately its adherents didn't die out completely, and will likely bring an end to that epoch
an awful lot of the article seems to be about how weird it is for people to study things carefully and try to do things that are not known to be possible, with the implicit subtext that being weird is bad
abandoning that ideology is how we got the industrial revolution and modern civilization, but unfortunately its adherents didn't die out completely, and will likely bring an end to that epoch
> unfortunate that the author didn't bother to distinguish between the effects of state-of-the-art cryopreservation by vitrification and the older cryopreservation procedures that produced the massive fracture damages they mention
Your comment also does not do this. What are these techniques that have results that are not like the ones described in the article?
Your comment also does not do this. What are these techniques that have results that are not like the ones described in the article?
Er, the parent literally did that, in the bit you quoted. All the results of thawing mentioned in the article are from the older freezing procedures. Current methods (as mentioned in the article) use a form of vitrification. My understanding is that no one has been (intentionally, carefully) thawed after being vitrified using "modern" techniques, so we really don't know what condition a body would be in after unthawing using current technology.
Now, "not knowing" doesn't prove anything, of course, and I think it was correct for the article to describe the evidence we do have, even if it's necessarily out of date. But it would have been nice for them to acknowledge that the unthawing data we have is not representative of what would happen if a "current-gen" cryonics "patient" were to be thawed today.
Now, "not knowing" doesn't prove anything, of course, and I think it was correct for the article to describe the evidence we do have, even if it's necessarily out of date. But it would have been nice for them to acknowledge that the unthawing data we have is not representative of what would happen if a "current-gen" cryonics "patient" were to be thawed today.
> My understanding is that no one has been (intentionally, carefully) thawed after being vitrified using "modern" techniques, so we really don't know what condition a body would be in after unthawing using current technology.
why haven't they tested this on animals or non-paying cadavers? It would seem unwise to pay to keep vitrified bodies frozen if one had no understanding of how the bodies would be when they were unfrozen.
why haven't they tested this on animals or non-paying cadavers? It would seem unwise to pay to keep vitrified bodies frozen if one had no understanding of how the bodies would be when they were unfrozen.
The state of the art in this field is removing a rabbit's kidney, vitrifying it, waiting a month or so, thawing it and implanting it. I haven't read this article but the abstract seems to confirm what I read a while ago.[0]
Apparently the bottleneck is in thawing organs past a certain size, current thawing methods lead to uneven thawing in larger organs, however I read they were experimenting with using directed radio waves?
Of course once you thaw a person successfully you still need to cure them of what killed them and revive them and that part is highly variable and if they died of aging is still well beyond our reach.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318757723_Thermal_A...
Apparently the bottleneck is in thawing organs past a certain size, current thawing methods lead to uneven thawing in larger organs, however I read they were experimenting with using directed radio waves?
Of course once you thaw a person successfully you still need to cure them of what killed them and revive them and that part is highly variable and if they died of aging is still well beyond our reach.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318757723_Thermal_A...
Sure, you can freeze and unfreeze an organ. But that doesn’t work with the brain the electricity and the connections between the neurons are you. Cryogenic freezing will never work, until the structure of the brain can be preserved. All current methods kill the brain. It’s expensive snake oil.
Even if the preserved brain is very different from its original state, it might be possible to reconstruct the original state using future technology.
Imagine if I made an origami animal, then unfolded the paper and handed you the paper plus an origami book with the animal I made. With enough time and care, you'd probably be able to observe the creases and refold the paper to reconstruct the original animal.
Supposing technology continues to advance at the rate it has been -- then by year 3000, the problem of cryonic revival is likely one of statistical inference on possible original brains, with the cryopreserved brain as evidence. Hard to predict the difficulty of that problem in advance.
Imagine if I made an origami animal, then unfolded the paper and handed you the paper plus an origami book with the animal I made. With enough time and care, you'd probably be able to observe the creases and refold the paper to reconstruct the original animal.
Supposing technology continues to advance at the rate it has been -- then by year 3000, the problem of cryonic revival is likely one of statistical inference on possible original brains, with the cryopreserved brain as evidence. Hard to predict the difficulty of that problem in advance.
> But that doesn’t work with the brain the electricity [...] are you.
Source? How do you know it's not just the neurons?
Source? How do you know it's not just the neurons?
In the 1950s scientists were freezing small rodents and reanimating them using a primitive microwave. [0] If vitrifying and reviving a single rodent organ is the state-of-the-art 70 years later, I am not exactly impressed by their progress.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y
Freezing is different from vitrification.
With proper storage maintenance vitrifified organs can be stored indefinitely while frozen things eventually get freezer burn.
With proper storage maintenance vitrifified organs can be stored indefinitely while frozen things eventually get freezer burn.
> It would seem unwise to pay to keep vitrified bodies frozen if one had no understanding of how the bodies would be when they were unfrozen.
The people storing popsicles don't necessarily need to have anything to do with the people who dream of someday unthawing them. If some rich person wants to pay to keep an expensive freezer running for a specified amount of time after they die, that creates a sound business opportunity for someone who is willing and capable of running a freezer.
The people storing popsicles don't necessarily need to have anything to do with the people who dream of someday unthawing them. If some rich person wants to pay to keep an expensive freezer running for a specified amount of time after they die, that creates a sound business opportunity for someone who is willing and capable of running a freezer.
> The people storing popsicles don't necessarily need to have anything to do with the people who dream of someday unthawing them.
Generally speaking the thing they have in common is the funding required to do the cryonic enterprise.
> If some rich person wants to pay to keep an expensive freezer running for a specified amount of time after they die, that creates a sound business opportunity for someone who is willing and capable of running a freezer.
The question is "why would some rich person want to pay to keep a freezer running after they die?" in the case of cryonics the answer is usually because they have some expectation that they could be unfrozen and revived in the future.
Generally speaking the thing they have in common is the funding required to do the cryonic enterprise.
> If some rich person wants to pay to keep an expensive freezer running for a specified amount of time after they die, that creates a sound business opportunity for someone who is willing and capable of running a freezer.
The question is "why would some rich person want to pay to keep a freezer running after they die?" in the case of cryonics the answer is usually because they have some expectation that they could be unfrozen and revived in the future.
Let’s skip the freezer and just launch the popsicles into deep space orbit behind mars or something.
Once we can successfully Futurama the bodies we will easily be able to retrieve the frozen capsules.
Once we can successfully Futurama the bodies we will easily be able to retrieve the frozen capsules.
Won't they get pelted by microastroids, molecularly pulped with ionizing radiation, cooked by various sources of heat? Popsicles usually don't last very long outside a freezer
If you send them away from the sun or otherwise shield them (dark side of a planet, out past Pluto) they’ll be pretty cold and stable. You’d leave them in the rocket of course.
The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270 °C; −455 °F). Probably too cold.
The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270 °C; −455 °F). Probably too cold.
Because their clients are extremely rich people and if they’re not confident the experiments will work they won’t get money from those said rich people.
Cryonics is actually quite affordable -- within the means of most people reading this comment, I would guess: https://www.alcor.org/membership/
You ever hear of the term "technical debt"?
How many times have you said "sod it, that sounds like a problem that Tomorrow chordalkeyboard can deal with, I'm going home"?
In this case, it's "sod it, future human-popsicleologists can solve that one, at least I got them frozen"
How many times have you said "sod it, that sounds like a problem that Tomorrow chordalkeyboard can deal with, I'm going home"?
In this case, it's "sod it, future human-popsicleologists can solve that one, at least I got them frozen"
[deleted]
The Alcor site presents evidence of a rabbit kidney that is vitrified, stored in a dewar for a month, then revived and put back into the donor rabbit.
Or at least they did the last time I looked.
Or at least they did the last time I looked.
I'll be impressed once they do that with a human brain. Before that any cryogenic stuff is just a creative way of burning money and energy.
Lots of scientific research is done this way - you don't know if an approach works, but you try it and document it. If it does, others can follow up, if it doesn't, it's a hint to take another path.
How about a rabbit brain?
Don't let the idiots get you down - the world is, and has been, becoming friendlier to little niches of people over time. The smart weirdos have been kicking butt for a long time now (at least the ones that can get to a friendly enclave) and this is set to grow exponentially.
And if you're still pessimistic, consider this. A person I otherwise rabidly disagree with once said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Well, military power is also now accruing to those with the best ideas (see all the drones and cyber-war lately).
The world is slowly turning into nerd paradise!
And if you're still pessimistic, consider this. A person I otherwise rabidly disagree with once said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Well, military power is also now accruing to those with the best ideas (see all the drones and cyber-war lately).
The world is slowly turning into nerd paradise!
there is relatively little correlation between conformism and intelligence
a world dominated by military power is not a nerd paradise
consider the plight of the iranian nuclear scientists
a world dominated by military power is not a nerd paradise
consider the plight of the iranian nuclear scientists
Despite the tragedy in Ukraine, most people in most countries are living through an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.
Since 1950, the global population has more than tripled, while militaries have shrunk. Since 1960, military spending as a share of global GDP has gone down from over 6% to less than 3%.
The world isn't perfect, but it has become a lot less warlike and more hospitable for nerds in recent decades.
Since 1950, the global population has more than tripled, while militaries have shrunk. Since 1960, military spending as a share of global GDP has gone down from over 6% to less than 3%.
The world isn't perfect, but it has become a lot less warlike and more hospitable for nerds in recent decades.
01960 was in some sense the height of the cold war, and also only 15 years after the end of world war ii (in europe and japan, anyway; in china and some other places war continued longer)
the cold war ended in 01991, and since then the us has been pretty much free to invade and conquer and colonize wherever it wanted without any real opposition
it's been 77 years since the end of world war ii, so this is probably an atypically peaceful moment in history
probably a few years into world war iii military spending will be a much larger fraction of gdp
the cold war ended in 01991, and since then the us has been pretty much free to invade and conquer and colonize wherever it wanted without any real opposition
it's been 77 years since the end of world war ii, so this is probably an atypically peaceful moment in history
probably a few years into world war iii military spending will be a much larger fraction of gdp
>Since 1950, the global population has more than tripled
I don't see this as a grand thing tbh. Sure there's more nerds but I feel like they trive most when not having to deal with scarcities.
I don't see this as a grand thing tbh. Sure there's more nerds but I feel like they trive most when not having to deal with scarcities.
I don't think he was saying that's a good thing on its own, population relative to military spending was the point...
The world always has and always will be dominated by military power, but that power is increasingly wielded by engineers.
2000 years ago, you needed a couple of engineers in charge of sword production and an army of Jocko Willinck types to wield the swords.
Now, you have an army of engineers producing drones, some other nerds remotely piloting the drones, and a couple of J.W.'s to do specialized strikes.
I don't see this trend reaching a stopping point anytime soon.
2000 years ago, you needed a couple of engineers in charge of sword production and an army of Jocko Willinck types to wield the swords.
Now, you have an army of engineers producing drones, some other nerds remotely piloting the drones, and a couple of J.W.'s to do specialized strikes.
I don't see this trend reaching a stopping point anytime soon.
AI and it's automation of knowledge work will destroy the nerd paradise.
The only hard jobs left are things involving physical labor, like plumbing (ironically extremely hard to automate).
Nerds are capital F "ucked"
The only hard jobs left are things involving physical labor, like plumbing (ironically extremely hard to automate).
Nerds are capital F "ucked"
So what I think is the most likely outcome is that we realise there are better ways to preserve the dead for reanimation, and nobody will ever bother working on how to salvage the crudely frozen/vitrified.
I personally think the way forward is to derive the neural connectivity and transcriptional state map of the brain on a single cell level. This can be done today, albeit at great expense, on tissue that is chemically fixed. Maybe this will be enough to reanimate someone in a new substrate. Maybe more data will be required, but eventually we’ll get there, accepting that human consciousness is subject to the laws of physics.
I personally think the way forward is to derive the neural connectivity and transcriptional state map of the brain on a single cell level. This can be done today, albeit at great expense, on tissue that is chemically fixed. Maybe this will be enough to reanimate someone in a new substrate. Maybe more data will be required, but eventually we’ll get there, accepting that human consciousness is subject to the laws of physics.
So is it really the same person you're reanimating, or is it someone/something that simulates that person perfectly to the outside world?
I mean, suppose you could do that while the person is still alive. Assuming the reanimated person even has consciousness, then surely(?) the two won't share the same experience, like some hive-mind with two bodies. I don't think the original person being dead makes any difference.
So it's less about preserving "yourself" (whatever that means), and more about assuring that a backup clone exists after you die. I can see why that might be useful (it's kind of like leaving a will), but your experience probably ends when you die.
I mean, suppose you could do that while the person is still alive. Assuming the reanimated person even has consciousness, then surely(?) the two won't share the same experience, like some hive-mind with two bodies. I don't think the original person being dead makes any difference.
So it's less about preserving "yourself" (whatever that means), and more about assuring that a backup clone exists after you die. I can see why that might be useful (it's kind of like leaving a will), but your experience probably ends when you die.
Recently I had a thought, that if you copied the contents of your brain onto an object that can the simulate it, or even a new brain, then the "new instance" of you will probably just think it's the real you, just that it's on a computer/in a different body now. If New You sees a picture of a partner that left you, or a pet that died when you were a child, it will feel the same sadness you would. And it would just go about the day like you would, with your internal thoughts, because what else would it do?
I think the way I see it now is, your mind is a black box to your current consciousness (with some interfaces to recall things), if you replaced this black box with a perfect simulation, your consciousness might not even notice it. Of course your consciouness has also been programmed since the day you were born, but wouldn't a perfect copy of your mind also copy the current consciouness? Either of you would wake up and think "Ah, I'm brap, and I'm currently in my bed, and yesterday I did x and felt y, and the day before... [iterate until there's nothing else to remember]."
If Original You remains alive, it does get weird, both of you will think "There's someone else with my own exact brain and memory, but I can't feel what s/he's currently feeling!".
There's an Apple movie that explores about what I've written, although I haven't watched it: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/mahersha...
I think the way I see it now is, your mind is a black box to your current consciousness (with some interfaces to recall things), if you replaced this black box with a perfect simulation, your consciousness might not even notice it. Of course your consciouness has also been programmed since the day you were born, but wouldn't a perfect copy of your mind also copy the current consciouness? Either of you would wake up and think "Ah, I'm brap, and I'm currently in my bed, and yesterday I did x and felt y, and the day before... [iterate until there's nothing else to remember]."
If Original You remains alive, it does get weird, both of you will think "There's someone else with my own exact brain and memory, but I can't feel what s/he's currently feeling!".
There's an Apple movie that explores about what I've written, although I haven't watched it: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/mahersha...
Really interesting discussion! Reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
> is it someone/something that simulates that person perfectly to the outside world
what difference does it make?
what difference does it make?
Your experience ends.
Whether someone else who happens to have the same brain as you lives is almost irrelevant in that context.
Most people interested in cryo do this to prevent their experience from ending.
Whether someone else who happens to have the same brain as you lives is almost irrelevant in that context.
Most people interested in cryo do this to prevent their experience from ending.
yet we don't really have a way to know whether our experience exists as a continuum.
I could be a different experiencer to the one who was here yesterday, yet I retain their memories as mine so I have no clue that I'm 'new'. I might die today by falling asleep.
I may not even be the same a second from now.
I could be a different experiencer to the one who was here yesterday, yet I retain their memories as mine so I have no clue that I'm 'new'. I might die today by falling asleep.
I may not even be the same a second from now.
Were you really conscious a second ago, or is it only a memory that may as well be an illusion?
Are you conscious right now?
And what about right now?
Are you conscious right now?
And what about right now?
Good point. On the other hand whenever you sleep your experience also kind of ends. But i get what you're saying.
Did you ever used a simulator ?
The results depend on the models you use.
The results depend on the models you use.
>nobody will ever bother working on how to salvage the crudely frozen/vitrified.
I disagree, I think salvaging them will be of tremendous historical interest. Imagine if we could bring back a peasant from the 1400s. Medieval scholars would be all over that.
I disagree, I think salvaging them will be of tremendous historical interest. Imagine if we could bring back a peasant from the 1400s. Medieval scholars would be all over that.
Perhaps, I guess it depends on how much of the data we generate (tweets, video, blogs, text messages etc) survives into the future.
And how big/well-resourced history departments are in the future: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/20/in-the-future-everyone...
Didn't go so well for Kim Suozzi.
https://www.alcor.org/docs/alcor-case-report-a-2643.pdf
https://www.alcor.org/docs/alcor-case-report-a-2643.pdf
> After removing the carotid cannulae, Kim’s cephalon was removed from the enclosure and transferred to a modified LR40 dewar
It has been said that death has the most euphemisms of any subject. Cephalon? As in cephalic, Greek for head. Passive voice, too. I suppose one would want to create some distance. "We removed the tubes from the arteries and put the head in a thermos."
It has been said that death has the most euphemisms of any subject. Cephalon? As in cephalic, Greek for head. Passive voice, too. I suppose one would want to create some distance. "We removed the tubes from the arteries and put the head in a thermos."
If they laid bare what they were doing, in plain language, even fewer people would take them seriously.
Sure, and experimental things fail all the time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. Learning from failures is how progress is made.
I'm skeptical of this cryonics stuff, but I can see the appeal: even if the chance of being eventually revived is a tiny fraction of 1%, if money isn't an issue, why not? If humanity doesn't destroy itself over the next century or two, it might be fun to see what the future is like.
I'm skeptical of this cryonics stuff, but I can see the appeal: even if the chance of being eventually revived is a tiny fraction of 1%, if money isn't an issue, why not? If humanity doesn't destroy itself over the next century or two, it might be fun to see what the future is like.
Ok, but this is what people pursuing perpetual motion say, too. Meanwhile, the fundamentals of what's being attempted here are pretty implausible. Not all scientific advancements pattern match to the conventional journal article track on which most science is done today, but the oddball projects are signaling something.
I don't like getting super deep into these threads, because my normal tendency will be to nerd out on all the reasons I think Alcor is kind of shady, but I'm acutely aware that there are real people involved here and these situations are always incredibly sad. I really just want to chime in to push back on the idea that "modern" cryonics have the problems worked out; I think it's kind of likely that the insurmountable problems here are fractal.
I don't like getting super deep into these threads, because my normal tendency will be to nerd out on all the reasons I think Alcor is kind of shady, but I'm acutely aware that there are real people involved here and these situations are always incredibly sad. I really just want to chime in to push back on the idea that "modern" cryonics have the problems worked out; I think it's kind of likely that the insurmountable problems here are fractal.
> on all the reasons I think Alcor is kind of shady
If Alcor actually is doing shady things, then I would certainly agree with you. I read up on them quite a bit around 10 years ago, but I haven't really kept up since then. But my impression was that they weren't giving false hope, and were telling people that the chances were slim that they'd ever wake up again. I also didn't read anything to suggest that their post-death care is something other than what they promise, and I thought it was sensible how they require patient care to be funded. But admittedly I didn't dive as deeply into third-party criticism as I probably should have (instead I just lost interest).
> I really just want to chime in to push back on the idea that "modern" cryonics have the problems worked out
I don't think anyone is saying that, though? If I've said something that made you or anyone believe that, my apologies, because that's certainly not what I believe. Certainly modern cryonics is more advanced than simply "lower body temp slowly until it seems like it might vaguely be safe to bring in the LN", but "advanced" in this case doesn't mean "it works". No one knows, still, of course, and I would strongly expect that it doesn't work.
> I think it's kind of likely that the insurmountable problems here are fractal.
The promise of only-in-sci-fi "suspended animation" or "stasis" is, well, just that: sci-fi. I certainly would hope that these problems aren't insurmountable, and that we can actually find a way to more or less press the "pause" button on organic degradation. Certainly the current cryonics tech is nowhere near that; the hope is that any damage done by the cryonics process could eventually be reversed with sufficiently-advanced technology, and then eventually the cryonics process gets good enough that little to no damage (beyond the cause of death) ends up being done.
Who knows if that's possible, eventually, but I'd like to think it is.
If Alcor actually is doing shady things, then I would certainly agree with you. I read up on them quite a bit around 10 years ago, but I haven't really kept up since then. But my impression was that they weren't giving false hope, and were telling people that the chances were slim that they'd ever wake up again. I also didn't read anything to suggest that their post-death care is something other than what they promise, and I thought it was sensible how they require patient care to be funded. But admittedly I didn't dive as deeply into third-party criticism as I probably should have (instead I just lost interest).
> I really just want to chime in to push back on the idea that "modern" cryonics have the problems worked out
I don't think anyone is saying that, though? If I've said something that made you or anyone believe that, my apologies, because that's certainly not what I believe. Certainly modern cryonics is more advanced than simply "lower body temp slowly until it seems like it might vaguely be safe to bring in the LN", but "advanced" in this case doesn't mean "it works". No one knows, still, of course, and I would strongly expect that it doesn't work.
> I think it's kind of likely that the insurmountable problems here are fractal.
The promise of only-in-sci-fi "suspended animation" or "stasis" is, well, just that: sci-fi. I certainly would hope that these problems aren't insurmountable, and that we can actually find a way to more or less press the "pause" button on organic degradation. Certainly the current cryonics tech is nowhere near that; the hope is that any damage done by the cryonics process could eventually be reversed with sufficiently-advanced technology, and then eventually the cryonics process gets good enough that little to no damage (beyond the cause of death) ends up being done.
Who knows if that's possible, eventually, but I'd like to think it is.
I agree that what's being attempted is pretty implausible, but you're comparing it to people pursuing perpetual motion, which is in direct contravention of physical laws.
A better comparison might be people pursuing fusion for power generation -- something known to be possible, albeit potentially beyond human capabilities either now or in the future.
A better comparison might be people pursuing fusion for power generation -- something known to be possible, albeit potentially beyond human capabilities either now or in the future.
Yes, all I'd be saying with that comparison is that the logic used above proves too much. Of course, people also say the same sorts of things about advances that pan out.
> these situations are always incredibly sad
maybe even these horribly failing cases would actually make these people happy and not sad that they at least tried, instead of turning straight into nothing?
maybe even these horribly failing cases would actually make these people happy and not sad that they at least tried, instead of turning straight into nothing?
Do you mind going into a little more detail on the problems? The last I knew we had examples of smalls creatures freezing and thawing but it didn’t seem to scale up very well, and from what little I knew the problem seemed to be that freezing itself would damage cell walls (tiny chunks of ice poking calls through things all over your body), even if you managed to do it very fast and minimize the size of crystal formation.
But I learned all that a decade or two ago, so if you have a moment to update/correct me I’d be grateful.
But I learned all that a decade or two ago, so if you have a moment to update/correct me I’d be grateful.
09:51 Cephalon fell out of holding ring
hmm. So was this like a minor repositioning or was there a head rolling onto the floor?
hmm. So was this like a minor repositioning or was there a head rolling onto the floor?
kragen(1)
Years ago when I was in medical school, I concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it. There's something tremendously philosophically satisfying to recognizing that death is just the recycling of life so that new life can happen.
> I concluded to improve quality of life, no matter how finite, is a better endeavour than to prolong it.
Seems like a false dichotomy.
Aside from life support in one's final days, most practical medical interventions for prolonging life also result in significant improvements in quality of life.
For example, healthy diet and exercise contribute to extended lifespan, but they also improve quality of life significantly during all stages of life.
Seems like a false dichotomy.
Aside from life support in one's final days, most practical medical interventions for prolonging life also result in significant improvements in quality of life.
For example, healthy diet and exercise contribute to extended lifespan, but they also improve quality of life significantly during all stages of life.
> Aside from life support in one's final days, most practical medical interventions for prolonging life also result in significant improvements in quality of life.
I can assure you that you'd never ever hold that opinion if you were a healthcare worker. A big part of our job is to maintain alive people with a horrible quality of life who should be long dead, oftentimes without even being able to know if they'd in fact prefer dying...
I can assure you that you'd never ever hold that opinion if you were a healthcare worker. A big part of our job is to maintain alive people with a horrible quality of life who should be long dead, oftentimes without even being able to know if they'd in fact prefer dying...
How does one start to see a healthy diet as a “quality of life”? QoL is when you eat a chunk of anything you feel like, down it with soda and feel nothing bad next hour or day. I could do that, lie on a couch watching mtv or go fall from a tree when I was young. That was quality of life. Everything after 30 is just a life support. You improve life support by a diet or a (careful) walk.
Are you over 50? A year over 50 feels as satisfying as one month being 18. I’d rather enjoy what I have left.
Can you paraphrase this? Having trouble understanding what you mean and I want to know.
I'm not afpx, but I understood them to be saying "you have fewer good days when you're 50 than when you're 18." That is, health wise, it's better to be 18 than to be 50. :)
A related concept is the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which is used when weighing the cost/benefits of certain interventions.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
A related concept is the quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which is used when weighing the cost/benefits of certain interventions.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
Oh so when you’re 18 you extract as much pleasure/utility/etc from a month of life as you do from a year at 50? Maybe my late teens were lame because those times were not that awesome lol. Nor any other time I can think of. It’s all mostly been the same, except, say, when I was 4-8, when time just dragged on and on so slowly everything felt like eternity all the time. Then that ended and everything has been more or less the same from a psycho-emotional perspective.
Health-wise yeah it’s great to be young :)
Health-wise yeah it’s great to be young :)
There is a lot of subjectivity in your conclusion.
Healthy diet for example is not a singularly defined term and depending on specifics can be argued to lower quality of life even if they improve health.
Healthy diet for example is not a singularly defined term and depending on specifics can be argued to lower quality of life even if they improve health.
This is the mindset of most of the medical field so basically you bought into the status quo. Nothing profound about that. Those that are interested in longevity reject such notions because it leads to very little research in how to prolong life, or see death as a disease worth curing.
I suppose what I didn’t reveal is that I spent a lot of time before medicine trying to coax cells whether in a culture or some other medium to grow in the way I wanted it to grow. And it was hard. It’s been a while, but if I could recall correctly, cells tended to have a finiteness in their very nature. I think at some subconscious level, I interpreted this as nature’s way of expressing that is how things are designed to be.
I don’t do life science anymore, but deal with computers now. And it’s a whole lot more predictable and malleable. (Heck, it’s easy if I were to compare it to running gels or prepping cell lines.)
But I would be ecstatic if I could witness some science fiction level advancement in this field in my lifetime. I doubt it, but I would be amazed should it happen.
I don’t do life science anymore, but deal with computers now. And it’s a whole lot more predictable and malleable. (Heck, it’s easy if I were to compare it to running gels or prepping cell lines.)
But I would be ecstatic if I could witness some science fiction level advancement in this field in my lifetime. I doubt it, but I would be amazed should it happen.
> It’s been a while, but if I could recall correctly, cells tended to have a finiteness in their very nature.
This is known: https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Hayflick_limit
This is known: https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Hayflick_limit
On the other hand, there are 150-year-old tortoises and 200-year-old whales out there. So it's not like there is some finite impossibility to living a long time, other animals have figured it out.
Even better, human species live indefinitely through human cells making new human fetal cells. At it's essence, it's still a chemical transformation process. Some compounds are being converted, old human to new human, which keeps life going indefinitely.
[deleted]
And possibly 500 year old sharks. (Not yet confirmed)
Yeah that. There’s something even more subtle. Experiments run with certain older lines just… failed more. It’s weird. The supervisor would say, “Yeah go to X’s lab and grab theirs.”
Like the reproducibility is contingent on so many factors. Very depressing and tedious.
There’s definitely a lot we don’t know and the knowledge gap is huge. And even if it can be done in the lab, translating some finding to a workable therapeutic is another story.
Like the reproducibility is contingent on so many factors. Very depressing and tedious.
There’s definitely a lot we don’t know and the knowledge gap is huge. And even if it can be done in the lab, translating some finding to a workable therapeutic is another story.
If you look about it a certain way. At the species level, we've already reached biological immortality.
The trick is to have some cells starting the process over. Sexual reproduction always started from pre-existing cells, rebuilding a full individual.
Using this process to repair all the living cells does not seem impossible.
Our understanding of DNA programming is far from sufficient to enable this kind of project, but I don't see why it could not be possible at some point.
The trick is to have some cells starting the process over. Sexual reproduction always started from pre-existing cells, rebuilding a full individual.
Using this process to repair all the living cells does not seem impossible.
Our understanding of DNA programming is far from sufficient to enable this kind of project, but I don't see why it could not be possible at some point.
The DNA in the nucleus of a human cell has telomeres, which effectively function as a countdown timer for reproduction. Every cell division drops the timer by one, and when the timer hits zero, the cell enters senescence and stops working so hard. Killing off senescent cells improves quality of life in several aspects.
Then there are transposons, elements of ancient retroviruses embedded in our DNA, that can awaken and spray themselves thousands of times over the cell's genome. Usually, these new inserts don't hit anything important. Usually. Germline cells have mechanisms to suppress this, but most cells undergo this once a month.
You are talking about a lot of damage to repair in an older cell.
Then there are transposons, elements of ancient retroviruses embedded in our DNA, that can awaken and spray themselves thousands of times over the cell's genome. Usually, these new inserts don't hit anything important. Usually. Germline cells have mechanisms to suppress this, but most cells undergo this once a month.
You are talking about a lot of damage to repair in an older cell.
No, fuck the older cell, replace everything with new, but slow enough.
Ask an oncologist if they feel that is the status quo. 20% of people who get chemotherapy get it within weeks of dying, as if suffering even more will prolong their life. Not all oncologists are like that but many feel harsh treatments which ruin a person's other healthy cells with tons of side effects is worth it for keeping a patient alive just a few months more.
I don't know much about oncology, but it strikes me that they probably don't know with certainty which of the 20% it will be. They have a limited number of interventions that put the patient through hell, and it sometimes works.
There's probably extreme cases with bad metastasis where it's very unlikely that they can be saved, and they can probably tell some of those. But I think not all the time.
Must be a very depressing job to observe this over the years.
There's probably extreme cases with bad metastasis where it's very unlikely that they can be saved, and they can probably tell some of those. But I think not all the time.
Must be a very depressing job to observe this over the years.
>so basically you bought into the status quo. Nothing profound about that
Nothing profound in being scared shitless of it either
Nothing profound in being scared shitless of it either
Perhaps the disease worth curing even more is the mindset that rejects longevity.
Someday they'll demonstrate existence of an afterlife to the satisfaction of the average consumer and the whole world is gonna do a Homer Simpson.
I mean, it'll flip our whole value system.
I mean, it'll flip our whole value system.
Genuinely curious for your perspective- can you elaborate?
I'm into meditation and similar mystic weirdness.
I've seen what appears to be a literal "city of the dead".
No doubt a metaphor. But metaphor appears to be a big part of "reality".
I've also seen what appears to be a "creator of reality".
So ya, it's a weird world.
I've seen what appears to be a literal "city of the dead".
No doubt a metaphor. But metaphor appears to be a big part of "reality".
I've also seen what appears to be a "creator of reality".
So ya, it's a weird world.
So the religious fanatics were right all along? I think the afterlife is actually the life after you realise there is no afterlife. Many never reach it.
Well a lot of those guys are just citing other guys. Not the most robust epistemology.
It's pretty hard to dispute the thousands of NDE reports. Similar experiences, descriptions across different cultures and religions. Young children, even the blind since birth all fairly consistently report the same.
[deleted]
So... you're _for_ cryopreservation? Because having it as a standard end-of-life option is the simplest way of cutting on unnecessary live prolonging procedures. You get sick, you enjoy the time you have, you get frozen. It's a win-win proposition from pretty much every point of view.
That seems to be the literal opposite of almost all public health advice - we always seem to focus on how there may be some potential negative consequence of everything and ignore the impact on quality of life (I'm mainly thinking of food and drink, but I think it extends e.g. to covid hysteria). In the end, advice just gets ignored, or forms part of a puritanical shaming system that nobody adheres to but everybody judges others based on. It would be nice if more public health institutions adopted your attitude and realized life is worth living and isn't just about living as long and boring a life as possible.
I don't agree, and you shouldn't force those of us who don't agree to die.
You're going to die eventually whether you like it or not. Better to get comfortable with this fact, rather than fight it.
Doesn't that argument prove too much? In the past, people's lives were shorter and more full of misery. Every improvement we've gotten has been due to people rejecting your philosophy. Assuming one can live longer (without being frail and demented) why not?
It seems like if most people could choose, they'd prefer to have the mental and physical abilities of a 20-something while living as long as they wanted. Eventually, medical technology will get to the point where that is possible. Why not hasten such a day rather than let more people get old and frail? Yes, people will still eventually die, but living for 300 years in peak condition seems better than the status quo.
It seems like if most people could choose, they'd prefer to have the mental and physical abilities of a 20-something while living as long as they wanted. Eventually, medical technology will get to the point where that is possible. Why not hasten such a day rather than let more people get old and frail? Yes, people will still eventually die, but living for 300 years in peak condition seems better than the status quo.
so do you really prefer society putting effort in very complex labour that is unknown than making people aware of how important is a good diet and exercising often?
as the website article typed, there is a long way to tickle trustable keys to preservation, let alone reviving a frozen body, let alone understanding what we have to do to live in peak capacity for 50 years, let alone to live 300…
i sincerely prefer public and private money being wasted on improving our ‘short’ lives than MAYBE discovering some esotericism that probably very few people will have access
as the website article typed, there is a long way to tickle trustable keys to preservation, let alone reviving a frozen body, let alone understanding what we have to do to live in peak capacity for 50 years, let alone to live 300…
i sincerely prefer public and private money being wasted on improving our ‘short’ lives than MAYBE discovering some esotericism that probably very few people will have access
We have 8 billion people, no need for either ors.
i mean, is better to have a solid foundation to discover and create things… some people still do not have access to proper nutrition
There is so much money spent on crap by organisations and individuals around the world, and we should save money for the abjectly poor or to promote healthy habits and prevention by not trying to radically improve the human condition itself?
As for a solid foundation to discover and create things, you need to be healthy and have time first of all. The logistics of life just suck as it is now unless you are really lucky. It used to be much worse but it can get much better.
As for a solid foundation to discover and create things, you need to be healthy and have time first of all. The logistics of life just suck as it is now unless you are really lucky. It used to be much worse but it can get much better.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Is there a proof that we have to die? Or that immortality for a human is impossible? Seems more like a lot in the medical field have experienced so much death that they simply have accepted it for a fact.
If you asked someone centuries back if we would go to the moon, they will laugh you out of the room. Similarly, if you said that people will consistently live to their 90+ years of age.
If you asked someone centuries back if we would go to the moon, they will laugh you out of the room. Similarly, if you said that people will consistently live to their 90+ years of age.
It seem pretty likely that we have to die, based on the second law of thermodynamics. The whole universe has to end eventually, after many trillions of years. There's no physical law that would stop a person sticking around for those trillions of years, but it would be technologically very difficult.
I reject your reality and substitute my own. I'm immortal and I will make it so
If you were going to die tomorrow, and if you had the option to live another day, what would you choose? Then days become months and months become years and so on and so forth.
What a strange statement, who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?
Do you think GP's decision not to focus their work on life extension is forcing you to die?
Do you think GP's decision not to focus their work on life extension is forcing you to die?
In a hopeless situation, I would not prolong my life. But that would be my choice for myself. I don't get to make that choice for others. Why should you?
The trick is that's hard to know the hopeless situation. Many people get away with cancer so are you ready to deny yourself one more chance to live?
You'd have someone else wipe your ass rather than embrace death? How dignified.
I think the person you're replying to is referring to cryonics (the topic of the original article), which is still illegal in many jurisdictions.
The point of drug discovery to slow down or stop aging is not to keep people in that frail state of life for as long as possible. Instead is to keep people in their 30s for as long as possible. Most research out there is trying to solve aging, not death.
His choice. Not yours.
It's a legitimate consideration.
It’s funny on HN tonight. We have one thread where a county in rural Tennessee lets houses burn down for want of a $75 free or 0.13% tax increase, because freedom.
And here, because freedom, people are advocating for the freedom to pretend death isn’t approaching, at the cost of millions to society.
And here, because freedom, people are advocating for the freedom to pretend death isn’t approaching, at the cost of millions to society.
How do you equate some people's denial of death with a cost of millions to society rather than as costs to the indovidual?
pessimizer(1)
We all die eventually. This isn't the Sandman Universe [1].
[1] https://majorspoilers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sandman...
[1] https://majorspoilers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sandman...
We all die eventually, so far...
you'd figure if biology was capable then it would have found a solution by now. But as far as I'm aware immortality isn't a trait of any multi-cellular organism that has ever lived on this rock.
I mean maybe we can stick some pipes in a corpse and get it to move around or make a digital echo of a dead personality and have that rattle around inside a robot. However, I feel like we're drifting into wishful thinking if we figure genuine immortality is a going to be a some sort of scientific given.
I mean maybe we can stick some pipes in a corpse and get it to move around or make a digital echo of a dead personality and have that rattle around inside a robot. However, I feel like we're drifting into wishful thinking if we figure genuine immortality is a going to be a some sort of scientific given.
>if biology was capable then it would have found a solution by now
It did though.[0]
There is likely very little evolutionary pressure for immortality, therefore this kind of thing isn't more widespread. If anything, at population level evolution might generally select for the population that produces a new generation and dies quicker.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii
It did though.[0]
There is likely very little evolutionary pressure for immortality, therefore this kind of thing isn't more widespread. If anything, at population level evolution might generally select for the population that produces a new generation and dies quicker.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii
Oh cool, thanks for that. I would argue that's not exactly the sort of immortality we have in mind when we discuss it though.
Consider that death may actually not be as selected against in nature as you seem to imply. An everliving organism would not as easily adapt to a changing environment, if and until a new mechanism of evolution is generated. We may be stuck in a local minima.
Nature doesn't have goals. Humans, as far as I can tell, very much do. Put another way. Evolution didn't find a way to get life onto the Moon. Humans did.
Nature doesn't have goals. Humans, as far as I can tell, very much do. Put another way. Evolution didn't find a way to get life onto the Moon. Humans did.
> death is just the recycling of life so that new life can happen.
This is Stockholm syndrome. We all die, so some of us choose to think it's a good thing. Death in general is needed for recycling, but not human death. Humans represent 0.00000001% (warning, made up number) of the available matter. We don't need to die for others to live.
This is Stockholm syndrome. We all die, so some of us choose to think it's a good thing. Death in general is needed for recycling, but not human death. Humans represent 0.00000001% (warning, made up number) of the available matter. We don't need to die for others to live.
[deleted]
> recognizing
You're not recognizing anything you're deluding yourself to accept the incredible loss that is death.
You're not recognizing anything you're deluding yourself to accept the incredible loss that is death.
Absolutely. Place aux autres - make room for others.
Cryonic preservation might or might not be possible, this is clearly a difficult process but we're never going to find out without trying.
Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage.
Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage.
> Dead people have no use for money, doing this kind of research is not a waste, in my opinion, even if it is very unlikely to work at this stage.
Umm, people still alive have use for money. The money could go towards helping the lives of the living, so it absolutely is a waste.
Umm, people still alive have use for money. The money could go towards helping the lives of the living, so it absolutely is a waste.
The dead people don't freeze the money. They spend it on research. Once it's spent, it's in circulation, going around helping the lives of the living.
Money is a surrogate for labor. It costs labor to build cryogenic tombs, and to maintain them in perpetuity. This labor is a cost the living incur, which some may argue could be better spent on, say, educating people about biological science and the realities of cellular degradation.
There was no doubt at least one Ancient Egyptian with the same opinion. So maybe there is a future tourism or archaeological opportunity here?
Well, if we accept the reality that the wealthy people doing this weren't going to have that money taxed away, I'd rather it go into a scientific pursuit that might have some payoff than just go into some generationally wealthy kids trust fund
Yeah, we should expropriate the assets of [Nonprofit that does thing I don’t like] to spend it on [thing I like].
Almost everything people in rich countries do is a ridiculous luxury compared to the fact that it costs about $1,000 to save someone from dying of malaria. Most of everything humans do is clearly a waste. We can’t even get it together to prepare for the next pandemic, never mind existential risk. This is besides the fact that nothing matters. There’s no God to ascribe meaning to things. Things only matter if they matter to you.
Almost everything people in rich countries do is a ridiculous luxury compared to the fact that it costs about $1,000 to save someone from dying of malaria. Most of everything humans do is clearly a waste. We can’t even get it together to prepare for the next pandemic, never mind existential risk. This is besides the fact that nothing matters. There’s no God to ascribe meaning to things. Things only matter if they matter to you.
I never said we should take the money or even that we should prevent them from wasting their money on cryonics… I was simply stating it was still a waste of money. I can tell someone they are wasting their money without forcing them to stop.
The people running the Cryo business are living people who get paid for the task. No more wasteful than any other relatively benign thing someone is going to spend their money on.
Also it was their money before they died. Who are you to say what they should or shouldn't do with it?
There is absolutely benefit in doing this type of research even if there is only a small chance that it ends up working.
There is absolutely benefit in doing this type of research even if there is only a small chance that it ends up working.
As long as we're going down that route, end-of-life medical care is also quite costly.
I wonder: With economies of scale, could cryonics actually become cheaper than end-of-life medical care? Currently the ballpark cost of cryonics is similar to health insurance: https://www.alcor.org/membership/
It wouldn't shock me if cryopreserving terminally ill people would save money overall, given economies of scale. I would certainly prefer cryopreservation over terminal illness! https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay...
I wonder: With economies of scale, could cryonics actually become cheaper than end-of-life medical care? Currently the ballpark cost of cryonics is similar to health insurance: https://www.alcor.org/membership/
It wouldn't shock me if cryopreserving terminally ill people would save money overall, given economies of scale. I would certainly prefer cryopreservation over terminal illness! https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay...
This is my take too. Even modern cryonics is crude, but it's still better information preservation than the current approach of letting the body decompose and dissipate entirely.
The article covers the state of the physical complications quite well. I doubt we will be able to reverse the physical damage and safely reanimate before we learn how to digitize people, so I think the best bet is likely going to be in digitizing the brain after death.
Even if that comes with some damage, we know the brain is pretty plastic and functions well enough even with entire areas missing.
Still seems like a reach. But what's the other option? You can't take the money with you and there's no better alternatives if you would like more time.
The article covers the state of the physical complications quite well. I doubt we will be able to reverse the physical damage and safely reanimate before we learn how to digitize people, so I think the best bet is likely going to be in digitizing the brain after death.
Even if that comes with some damage, we know the brain is pretty plastic and functions well enough even with entire areas missing.
Still seems like a reach. But what's the other option? You can't take the money with you and there's no better alternatives if you would like more time.
And also would be great for organ donations.
This actually reminds me of something I was thinking about a couple days ago. You know how people can be resuscitated after hours with their hearts stopped, if they were in near-freezing conditions? Like people who have drowned in frozen lakes and then been brought back hours later? Someone coined the phrase, "You're not dead until you're warm and dead." Well, I wonder if that could be done long term. I'm guessing all the body's processes would be dramatically slowed in such a scenario, giving similar benefits to cryopreservation. Presumably it would come with many new problems (I doubt the brain would survive long term like that without at least some circulation of oxygenated blood for starters), but it's at least conceivable those would be easier to solve than the problem of freezing and thawing a body without irreversible damage.
There are a bunch of examples of that (mostly referred to as suspended animation) and a few that even have been covered in medical journals. There are examples on wikipedia[1]. I researched it as a topic for a very strange class I took in college and remember there were more than a few gov't research projects (DARPA and others) trying to achieve various means of suspended animation for military and space applications.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation#Basic_prin...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation#Basic_prin...
Good thought, and we are in fact working on it. Here's a layman's article about it from WIRED https://www.wired.com/story/mars-hiberators-guide-to-the-gal...
Surgeons do use induced hypothermia in some situations.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-11389464
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-11389464
Isochoric supercooling looks much more promising. The body does not freeze solid. The temperature is lowered to below freezing, but all fluids remain fluids.
I'm not aware of experiments with animals, and obviously not humans. But here's an experiment with human cardiac tissue [1], which went quite well.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-02650-9
I'm not aware of experiments with animals, and obviously not humans. But here's an experiment with human cardiac tissue [1], which went quite well.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-021-02650-9
Preserving sufficient structure of the brain is the most important. Hearts may not be a good test.
This test was a pragmatic one directed by the needs of heart transplants. There is no brain tissue transplant as of now. But there's no reason for science to not try other tissues and then even lab animals, then even pets, and at some point humans.
Wait But Why has an in-depth article advocating for cryonics. (As usual, very tech-optimistic.)
https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html
https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html
So here is one of my current fav. conspiracy theories AND it involves Elon.
Remember the first payload of his "Falcon Heavy" rocket - some tesla or other? Had a tailor's dummy in a space suit strapped in the front seat.
That was a real person in the suit who had paid for the most effective, reliable and longest lasting cryogenic freeze available. No maintenance power required. Will continue to be frozen even if the earth explodes. Not beholdent to anyone alive to make the right decisions...
Elon decided not to just hide it in plain sight but make a spectacle of it with live feeds etc.
Probably nonsense but makes a certian amount more logical sense than a dummy in a space suit, huh?
Remember the first payload of his "Falcon Heavy" rocket - some tesla or other? Had a tailor's dummy in a space suit strapped in the front seat.
That was a real person in the suit who had paid for the most effective, reliable and longest lasting cryogenic freeze available. No maintenance power required. Will continue to be frozen even if the earth explodes. Not beholdent to anyone alive to make the right decisions...
Elon decided not to just hide it in plain sight but make a spectacle of it with live feeds etc.
Probably nonsense but makes a certian amount more logical sense than a dummy in a space suit, huh?
It's in heliocentric orbit, it's getting cooked by solar radiation every day, taking the full brunt of solar flares without a magnetosphere to protect it, etc. If there were a body in the suit, it would surely turn into beef jerky. Or perhaps soup, if the suit can keep the fluids in. All the DNA would be shattered beyond repair by intense gamma radiation.
> but makes a certian amount more logical sense than a dummy in a space suit, huh?
It makes sense as a Heavy Metal reference.
> but makes a certian amount more logical sense than a dummy in a space suit, huh?
It makes sense as a Heavy Metal reference.
One potential limitation of cryogenics is that the radio isotopes in your own body will eventually cause too much damage to your DNA since natural repair processes will be offline as well. Obviously the radiation environment in space is much worse.
That is a good point.
This absence of evidence is proof of a need for genuine study.
>If there were a body in the suit, it would surely turn into beef jerky.
This isn't necessarily a problem:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34060818
"And even if they could be bothered, the thawed would be a lab experiment, owned by whatever corporation pulled off the magic."
That feeling when you wake up from your secret space cryostasis, only to discover you're the living (?) embodiment of meat, now owned by Arby's.
This isn't necessarily a problem:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34060818
"And even if they could be bothered, the thawed would be a lab experiment, owned by whatever corporation pulled off the magic."
That feeling when you wake up from your secret space cryostasis, only to discover you're the living (?) embodiment of meat, now owned by Arby's.
It can actually get really hot in space without some kind of active heat transfer. The body in the suit would probably alternate between freezing and frying. Not a great way to preserve a body IMO.
Trying to use facts, logic, and this "science" stuff against me is futile as I have a perfectly good conspiracy theory!
The silver suit couldn't insulate and keep the heat out?
The silver suit couldn't insulate and keep the heat out?
> The silver suit couldn't insulate and keep the heat out?
If you so wish to believe...
The problem is that there is no air to carry away the heat so that whole setup becomes like a miniature greenhouse. Without some active way to cool it eventually you'd cook.
If you so wish to believe...
The problem is that there is no air to carry away the heat so that whole setup becomes like a miniature greenhouse. Without some active way to cool it eventually you'd cook.
Heat can transfer via Conduction, Convection and Radiation. The vacuum of space may prevent the first two, but not loss of heat via Radiation. Infrared radiation to be precise. The heat loss is very slow, so yes at times it would be a miniature greenhouse.
Depends on where in space. In LEO... sure. In the orbit of the Tesla Roadster it's mostly warm isn't it?
Since it’s never really in the shadow of a planet (heliocentric orbit), it’s probably hotter overall.
From the videos I’ve seen, it’s also spinning really slowly. I think you could see off-gassing in some of the videos. I looked into it a little further, and there was speculation it was from the plastics and paint getting extremely hot in direct sunlight.
“Space” is roughly the same temperature (a little warmer near stars with particles and free gas), but the direct solar radiation is what is so hot. Since space is an excellent insulator, getting rid of the thermal energy becomes a problem when you’re not shaded.
If you want to read some more on this, check out what the JWST has done for thermal management. It’s really cool (no pun intended).
From the videos I’ve seen, it’s also spinning really slowly. I think you could see off-gassing in some of the videos. I looked into it a little further, and there was speculation it was from the plastics and paint getting extremely hot in direct sunlight.
“Space” is roughly the same temperature (a little warmer near stars with particles and free gas), but the direct solar radiation is what is so hot. Since space is an excellent insulator, getting rid of the thermal energy becomes a problem when you’re not shaded.
If you want to read some more on this, check out what the JWST has done for thermal management. It’s really cool (no pun intended).
The recent conspiracy I read is that Elon might be making clones of himself.
The last post Ye (Kanye) mades was a symbol that had a star of David with a swastika in it. And Elon personally kicked him off twitter immediately.
But that's actually a symbol for this cultish religious group.
"Raëlism teaches that an extraterrestrial species known as the Elohim created humanity using their advanced technology. It claims that throughout history the Alohim have created 40 Elohim/human hybrids who have served as prophets" You can see the symbol on their wikipedia page.
Raëlism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism
Remember when they cloned Dolly the sheep ... That was over 20 years ago.
The last post Ye (Kanye) mades was a symbol that had a star of David with a swastika in it. And Elon personally kicked him off twitter immediately.
But that's actually a symbol for this cultish religious group.
"Raëlism teaches that an extraterrestrial species known as the Elohim created humanity using their advanced technology. It claims that throughout history the Alohim have created 40 Elohim/human hybrids who have served as prophets" You can see the symbol on their wikipedia page.
Raëlism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism
Remember when they cloned Dolly the sheep ... That was over 20 years ago.
> In 1998, Raël established the Order of Angels, an internal all-female group whose members are largely sequestered from wider society and tasked with training themselves to become the Elohim's consorts.
You can already clone yourself, see my thread here:
https://twitter.com/ljk_0x/status/1602146542282067968?s=46&t...
Through SCNT it is possible to clone monkeys for 5 years now, I hope Elon clones himself.
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/5/3/301/4862476?login=f...
Through SCNT it is possible to clone monkeys for 5 years now, I hope Elon clones himself.
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/5/3/301/4862476?login=f...
Elohim, God on high.
Even if you were to stay frozen, the radiation you'd be exposed to in space would shred you at a cellular level way before the technology would come around to bring you back.
Scientifically not so good. Radiation damage will destroy everything in that body if someone actually did that.
Or maybe that's the real Elon and that's an imposter?
> makes a certain amount more logical sense than a dummy in a space suit
Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
Wouldn't it boil into soup as soon as the car faced the sun?
Science doesn't hold up, but immediate headcanon.
Something I find fascinating about living in the San Francisco Bay Area is that Cryonics has had occasional bursts of interest around here dating back to the 1970s... which means there are genuinely warehouses out here that have had frozen human bodies sitting in them for 40+ years at this point!
I keep hoping to score a tour of one some day.
I keep hoping to score a tour of one some day.
That's assuming the companies managing those bodies/warehouses haven't gone bankrupt and chucked the bodies in a dumpster in that intervening 40 years
As far as I can tell, the thesis of this article amounts to ‘cryonics is a weird idea, but what's even more weird is believing in the future.’
If you put aside the overt scorn, it's actually a fairly interesting article, and surprisingly upbeat at that.
If you put aside the overt scorn, it's actually a fairly interesting article, and surprisingly upbeat at that.
That scorn seems earned. Little progress has been made on raising the dead in 50 years.
I mean, CPR has gotten better for sure. But that's just for people who are mostly dead. Not going to work on people who are all-the-way-dead.
Anyone claiming high chances of resurrection in some sci-fi future are just blathing.
I mean, CPR has gotten better for sure. But that's just for people who are mostly dead. Not going to work on people who are all-the-way-dead.
Anyone claiming high chances of resurrection in some sci-fi future are just blathing.
I agree the scorn seems earned, but for a bit of a different reason.
Based on the article it sounds like these bodies are being "preserved" in an absolutely destroyed state. They've kept the outside pretty, but they've pulverized their insides during the freezing process. Even if cryogenics works one day, the chance that these people can be revived seems extremely remote. The chance that the "store the body and not just the head" idea helps seems even more remote given that the organs, blood veseels, etc are destroyed.
They didn't discuss it (presumably verifiable information is hard to come by), but if the rest of the body is that destroyed, it seems unlikely that the brain is doing much better..
Based on the article it sounds like these bodies are being "preserved" in an absolutely destroyed state. They've kept the outside pretty, but they've pulverized their insides during the freezing process. Even if cryogenics works one day, the chance that these people can be revived seems extremely remote. The chance that the "store the body and not just the head" idea helps seems even more remote given that the organs, blood veseels, etc are destroyed.
They didn't discuss it (presumably verifiable information is hard to come by), but if the rest of the body is that destroyed, it seems unlikely that the brain is doing much better..
Haven't read the article (have to finish coffee and start work) but modern cryo procedures are the opposite of this. They guarantee perfect preservation, but they offer no known restoring process.
Yeah. I just read the entire Wait But Why article linked elsewhere in the thread, and it seems to be taken as a given that technology will continue to increase at an exponential rate, and so the ability to precisely detect and arbitrarily manipulate the positions of individual atoms has got to be in our not-impossibly-distant future.
But I think we are having trouble really grasping the magnitude of that challenge compared to the progress made by science and rationalism so far. Today's medical interventions are breathtaking in effect compared to the state of the art of a hundred years ago, but the complexity of those interventions themselves does not even approach the complexity of the biological systems which are being restored. They are really very crude solutions. Even cutting-edge stuff like mRNA vaccines involves hijacking existing machinery rather than creating new machinery from whole cloth.
Anyhow, it's possible that humanity will go a long way, and that extinction is not in our future, but that nevertheless some problems will simply forever be beyond our intellectual capacity. It's not hard to imagine that all the requisite knowledge to accomplish this kind of techno-necromancy might not even be attainable in a single lifespan -- even a lifespan augmented by future technology.
Maybe AI solves that problem, but it would also be real weird to wake up in the future to discover that a race of incomprehensibly brilliant machines has resurrected you as a pet out of sheer boredom.
Ultimately, it appears that the odds of "successful cryonic preservation" due to any foreseeable reason are 0%. So a decision to do it would come down to betting against my own ability to predict the future. Fair enough: I've been wrong before, but I'm probably not wrong this time.
But I think we are having trouble really grasping the magnitude of that challenge compared to the progress made by science and rationalism so far. Today's medical interventions are breathtaking in effect compared to the state of the art of a hundred years ago, but the complexity of those interventions themselves does not even approach the complexity of the biological systems which are being restored. They are really very crude solutions. Even cutting-edge stuff like mRNA vaccines involves hijacking existing machinery rather than creating new machinery from whole cloth.
Anyhow, it's possible that humanity will go a long way, and that extinction is not in our future, but that nevertheless some problems will simply forever be beyond our intellectual capacity. It's not hard to imagine that all the requisite knowledge to accomplish this kind of techno-necromancy might not even be attainable in a single lifespan -- even a lifespan augmented by future technology.
Maybe AI solves that problem, but it would also be real weird to wake up in the future to discover that a race of incomprehensibly brilliant machines has resurrected you as a pet out of sheer boredom.
Ultimately, it appears that the odds of "successful cryonic preservation" due to any foreseeable reason are 0%. So a decision to do it would come down to betting against my own ability to predict the future. Fair enough: I've been wrong before, but I'm probably not wrong this time.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Scientists have successfully sliced, imaged, and analyzed (i.e. determined the connectome for) the entire brain of very small animal, the common fruit fly, Drosophila. We're still a long way from turning that into a virtual simulation of the creature, but it's a significant step towards it.
The idea of eventually creating a virtual simulation of the human brain, or even human body, modeling environmental variables and all, totally fascinates me. Are there any sources you’d recommend for someone looking to learn more about this?
I find the whole concept hilarious. There's an implicit assumption that someone in the future will be bothered to resurrect a frozen body, then resurrect them from death (since they already died before being popsicle-ified). And even if they could be bothered, the thawed would be a lab experiment, owned by whatever corporation pulled off the magic. And if magically they came out of the ordeal functional and free, there'd be those pesky bureaucrats to deal with (id, taxes, all the fun stuff). Hilarious.
I’m not signed up, but I know many people who are, and none of them assume any of these things. No one “expects” it to work, it’s just that they figure a long shot is better than no shot. The people I’ve talked to about it put their chances of successful revival at significantly less than 1%, and they think that’s worth it.
The LessWrong surveys asking (paraphrased) whether the average human iceblock from today will be reanimated seem to be in the low double digits. That's a lot higher than 1% and a lot higher than I'd put it.
I'm glad there are signups for cryonics, just on the off chance it works and anthropologists hundreds of generations in the future get to talk to a real life human from our time period. If people started freezing themselves en masse I'd have concerns about whether preserving millions of dead bodies is a good use of time and effort.
I'm glad there are signups for cryonics, just on the off chance it works and anthropologists hundreds of generations in the future get to talk to a real life human from our time period. If people started freezing themselves en masse I'd have concerns about whether preserving millions of dead bodies is a good use of time and effort.
Yeah I dunno. I mostly don't interact with LW, I mostly interact with people who are part of the in-person core of the community, so maybe the people online just have less realistic hopes than the core does.
Yep, that's exactly the stance I've heard from people who are interested in this sort of thing.
And to be honest, <1% odds seem a lot better than 0% odds for normal death. (Sans religious aftermaths)
And to be honest, <1% odds seem a lot better than 0% odds for normal death. (Sans religious aftermaths)
Humanity has tended to become more compassionate over time. It would have been unthinkable centuries ago that people donate money, time and effort to help those in distant lands; now it's commonplace. A frozen body from the past would be primitive and foreign to people in the future, but there are all manner of charities devoted to helping those (including helping with "id, taxes, all the fun stuff") who are primitive and foreign to us today.
> It would have been unthinkable centuries ago that people donate money, time and effort to help those in distant lands
In 1847 the Choctaw nation sent money to Ireland to help with the famine.
In 1847 the Choctaw nation sent money to Ireland to help with the famine.
I bet Barnum and Bailey will make a come back in the future using the cryocrones as a way to get around all the animal rights objections, parading them around like Ludger Sylbaris [1] in the guise of fundraising for these cryorestoration charities. For a little extra, you can feed them using their favorite food, high fructose Jurassic syrup. Sounds very enlightened dystopia.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludger_Sylbaris
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludger_Sylbaris
The fact that you find the way a "primitive and foreign" person was treated a mere century ago so horrific from the perspective of today rather proves my point.
I’m just a cynic with the comedic sense of a Vogon and that was more an attempt at humor than a serious argument :-)
Though I will add that morals and their reach often wax and wane. Chattel slavery is less acceptable today than it has ever been globally but there are more chattel slaves than ever just due to insane population growth
Though I will add that morals and their reach often wax and wane. Chattel slavery is less acceptable today than it has ever been globally but there are more chattel slaves than ever just due to insane population growth
Ha, interesting, a while ago I was thinking about a solution to this very problem. Everyone seems to focusing on the freezing part, but not what happens with the timeframe until you are unfrozen and beyond. Because in addition to nobody wanting to unfreeze you, you also would have no money and would basically be “poor” 500 years from now. On top of that there needs to be a long term storage facility which is somehow paid & maintained to “store” a frozen person over hundred of years until technology is available to unfreeze and revive a person.
As a solution I think there should be a special “bank” like organization which sole purpose it is to survive for hundred of years. It also would need to grow the money to keep up with inflation. In addition this organization needs to be country independent since you can’t guarantee countries to survive that long. This organization would also use some of the investment proceeds to pay for the storage and even transfer frozen people to a different location in case of war or natural disasters.
As a solution I think there should be a special “bank” like organization which sole purpose it is to survive for hundred of years. It also would need to grow the money to keep up with inflation. In addition this organization needs to be country independent since you can’t guarantee countries to survive that long. This organization would also use some of the investment proceeds to pay for the storage and even transfer frozen people to a different location in case of war or natural disasters.
This is a solved problem. Money goes in a trust in a state that has no law against perpetuities like South Dakota. Then pull it 200 years later as a bajillionaire, and you have an end run around capitalism.
Also Benjamin Franklin pulled of something like this from 1790-1990 "2,000 be divided equally between Boston and Philadelphia for use as loans for young apprentices" https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/21/us/from-ben-franklin-a-gi...
Also Benjamin Franklin pulled of something like this from 1790-1990 "2,000 be divided equally between Boston and Philadelphia for use as loans for young apprentices" https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/21/us/from-ben-franklin-a-gi...
People spend millions on the lottery. Old rich people spending their money on a revival ticket with similar chances doesn't seem that bad to me.
Reminds me of an old movie called "The Asphyx"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asphyx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asphyx
Since everyone is sharing related films, might I recommend Dennis Potter’s "Karaoke" and "Cold Lazarus", which deals directly with this theme?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaoke_(TV_series)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaoke_(TV_series)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus
>”there'd be those pesky bureaucrats to deal with (id, taxes, all the fun stuff). Hilarious.”
Turns out, death can be cheated but the taxman cannot.
Turns out, death can be cheated but the taxman cannot.
> There's an implicit assumption that someone in the future will be bothered to resurrect a frozen body
I imagine that mad scientists, in general, suffer from a lack of test subjects. I'm pretty sure the future will find something to do with frozen humans who signed up to be resurrected.
I imagine that mad scientists, in general, suffer from a lack of test subjects. I'm pretty sure the future will find something to do with frozen humans who signed up to be resurrected.
Yes. They will defrost and bury them.
Unless things have gotten really bad, in which case they'll defrost and eat them.
One thing they won't bother to do, is defrost and re-animate them, because why?
Unless things have gotten really bad, in which case they'll defrost and eat them.
One thing they won't bother to do, is defrost and re-animate them, because why?
Wouldn’t we if we had some prehistoric people in ice and had the technology? The whole world would want to watch.
> One thing they won't bother to do, is defrost and re-animate them, because why?
Maybe as like a really morbid party gag. Or to progress mad science?
Maybe as like a really morbid party gag. Or to progress mad science?
> And even if they could be bothered, the thawed would be a lab experiment, owned by whatever corporation pulled off the magic.
Which is the plot of several sci-fi books. The most recent I'm aware of being the fun and light "We Are Legion (We Are Bob)"
Which is the plot of several sci-fi books. The most recent I'm aware of being the fun and light "We Are Legion (We Are Bob)"
Implicit in your assumption is that nobody in the future will ever have the means and eccentric interest to want to revive these people.
If we could revive an iceman today, we absolutely would have, if not for science than for profit.
On that note, I'm disappointed by how often the future is assumed to have progressed no farther than today's form of capitalism.
That and TFA both speak to the same problem: the unimaginative belief that now is what was, is, and ever shall be.
If we could revive an iceman today, we absolutely would have, if not for science than for profit.
On that note, I'm disappointed by how often the future is assumed to have progressed no farther than today's form of capitalism.
That and TFA both speak to the same problem: the unimaginative belief that now is what was, is, and ever shall be.
If you haven't already, and without too many spoilers further than some (non-comedic) resonance with your comment, Charles Sheffield's Tomorrow and Tomorrow is a worthy read.
that was great to read
Regardless of how some might use this tech to prolong life, I'm confident this tech, or "Hibernation" in other literature, is needed if humanity ever hopes for interstellar space travel.
Assuming all of this doesn't just end with the bodies being dumped at some point, I wonder if future medicine will use the frozen bodies and brains more like a kind of reference to construct an AI from, instead of really trying to revive them.
Sort of how historians can read badly damaged ancient documents, but usually copy over their results to a new medium instead of trying to repair the original document.
A lot of the usual philosophical discussions following whether or not the AI is the same as the real person would probably follow...
Sort of how historians can read badly damaged ancient documents, but usually copy over their results to a new medium instead of trying to repair the original document.
A lot of the usual philosophical discussions following whether or not the AI is the same as the real person would probably follow...
I have a vague memory of watching a sci-fi mini-series in the nineties with a similar premise… something with "Lazarus" in the title. Ah, found it: Cold Lazarus.
[0] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0115140/
[0] https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0115140/
The book Fall; or, Dodge in Hell dives into a related topic; both frozen bodies, and brain reconstruction, reasoning through its potential consequences, and the experiences of a brain without a physical reference. It's quite long though! Also explores some unrelated concepts like finding truth an an internet world, Paradise Lost, and a fantasy adventure.
One of the big cons of this brand of immortality is that there is a pretty reasonable probability that if you manage to get uploaded at all someone will use copies of the result for horrific experiments or even just entertainment. You could wake up in hell, basically.
Seems to me anyone who thinks this option is strictly better than death lacks imagination.
Seems to me anyone who thinks this option is strictly better than death lacks imagination.
Was it Niven or Heinlein that speculated people in the future would be like screw you popsicles, we need organ donors?
that doesn't sound practical. a few hundred donors, and in a weird condition, too? that's negligible.
Niven.
Niven also had the idea that cryopreservation failed, but the the frozen brains could be liquified to extract the RNA encoded memories and injected into criminals who had been mind wiped. See World Out of Time, Integral Trees, and Smoke Ring
If you like sci-fi the “bobiverse” series that starts with We Are Legion (We Are Bob) is good and use cryogenics as a central part of the setup.
One question it explores: what exactly might people in the future want to do with the consciousness that have been frozen (hint it might not be good), and why?
Not award winning like Octavia Butler but it’s a fun read.
One question it explores: what exactly might people in the future want to do with the consciousness that have been frozen (hint it might not be good), and why?
Not award winning like Octavia Butler but it’s a fun read.
I very much enjoyed The Bobiverse series, and those parts frightened me a little. I'm a competent programmer, but I think faced with the challenge of writing (for instance) my own VR to maintain a semblance of self would require a lot of self-discipline. I'd probably end up driving a garbage truck as was suggested early in the first book...
> All but one of the first frozen futurists failed in their quest for immortality.
I really felt like I'd missed some big headline here.
I really felt like I'd missed some big headline here.
I wonder what leads people to believe that anyone in the future will be interested in applying their staggering new re-animation technologies to centuries-old frozen corpses?
There's a comment somewhere in this thread about perpetual motion. This tech seems to be its mirror-image, equal in impossibility, but opposite in aim. To stop all motion and decay, forever. Sometimes, it's wise to be circumspect, and to admit the possibility of a future technology that will change everything.
In the case of cryogenic storage of viable humans, however, I think it is straight-up, bona-fide, no-exceptions, impossible.
There's a comment somewhere in this thread about perpetual motion. This tech seems to be its mirror-image, equal in impossibility, but opposite in aim. To stop all motion and decay, forever. Sometimes, it's wise to be circumspect, and to admit the possibility of a future technology that will change everything.
In the case of cryogenic storage of viable humans, however, I think it is straight-up, bona-fide, no-exceptions, impossible.
If we found a caveman now we would definetely thaw it out to try to ask it some questions and study it. Why anyone
Would actually want to be put in such a position in the future, I'm honestly not sure. You would be more akin to a zoo animal than a person allowed to walk around in a certainly completely alien society, I'd imagine.
I watched a pretty horrifying scifi recently (I think it was on netflix) about a guy who chose to be frozen and was thawed in the early experimental stages of the reviving process and ends up as a lab rat basically.
why not? i think it would be an awesome experiment. If we somehow had a few hundred frozen people from say the middle ages, I think it would be very interesting and worth it to wake them up. So I believe it comes down to technology to do that, and these clumsy horrible initial attempts will hopefully improve over time.
If one of the reasons for wishing to be frozen, is to see what the future looks like, then there is an alternative; Einstein to the rescue!
Just strap yourself into a spaceship capable of reaching within a few % of the speed of light, and fly around for a bit.
No need to wait till you're at death's door and turned into a corpsicle. Just head on out there for a few years at relativistic speed. By the time you slow down and return, you'll be having pina coladas with your new Felidae-Sapiens masters ;)
Just strap yourself into a spaceship capable of reaching within a few % of the speed of light, and fly around for a bit.
No need to wait till you're at death's door and turned into a corpsicle. Just head on out there for a few years at relativistic speed. By the time you slow down and return, you'll be having pina coladas with your new Felidae-Sapiens masters ;)
The flaw in your theory being that it would take you equally as long to slow down as it would to reach that speed. So you would age out on the deceleration.
I suppose you could accelerate in an orbit around earth to maintain contact. But my understanding of relativity is poor
I suppose you could accelerate in an orbit around earth to maintain contact. But my understanding of relativity is poor
You would age the same amount during deceleration that you did during acceleration.
I think your misunderstanding comes from the relativistic twin paradox.
From the perspective of the twin on the spaceship accelerating away from earth, the twin on earth seems to age slowly as well until the space ship twin decelerates and then turns around, during which they perceive the twin on earth to age rapidly.
The acceleration / deceleration of the space ship twin’s frame of reference is what breaks the symmetry of the no-preferred frame of reference during flight.
I think your misunderstanding comes from the relativistic twin paradox.
From the perspective of the twin on the spaceship accelerating away from earth, the twin on earth seems to age slowly as well until the space ship twin decelerates and then turns around, during which they perceive the twin on earth to age rapidly.
The acceleration / deceleration of the space ship twin’s frame of reference is what breaks the symmetry of the no-preferred frame of reference during flight.
[deleted]
Depends on how good your spacecraft is at speeding up and slowing down, really. There are many designs which could probably do this relatively (heh) quickly.
I'm sure producing one of these things is more possible right now than freezing/thawing/reviving a human.
Alternatively, to compensate for how long it would take to speed up and slow down, just have our intrepid time-o-naut climb into their suspended animatio--- oh heck ;)
I'm sure producing one of these things is more possible right now than freezing/thawing/reviving a human.
Alternatively, to compensate for how long it would take to speed up and slow down, just have our intrepid time-o-naut climb into their suspended animatio--- oh heck ;)
You just need a space ship with some sort of magical fuel, which can also somehow survive hitting a speck of dust at near the speed of light.
Even then, accelerating and decelerating will take so long, I suspect you'll wish you had some way to freeze yourself for the trip.
Even then, accelerating and decelerating will take so long, I suspect you'll wish you had some way to freeze yourself for the trip.
"just"
The whole post was made in "humorous irony" ;)
However, successfully producing a relativistic spaceship is probably more possible right now than successfully creating and reviving human corpsicles... just sayin' ;)
However, successfully producing a relativistic spaceship is probably more possible right now than successfully creating and reviving human corpsicles... just sayin' ;)
That doesn't make your life any longer, it just allows more stuff to happen while you're away and missing out on it.
Well, freezers are more available than spaceships.
The article refers to cryonic storage units as Dewars:
The vacuum flask was designed and invented by Scottish scientist Sir James Dewar in 1892 as a result of his research in the field of cryogenics and is sometimes called a Dewar flask in his honour. While performing experiments in determining the specific heat of the element palladium, Dewar made a brass chamber that he enclosed in another chamber to keep the palladium at its desired temperature. He evacuated the air between the two chambers, creating a partial vacuum to keep the temperature of the contents stable. Dewar refused to patent his invention, and the flask, as developed by others using new materials such as glass and aluminium, became a significant tool for chemical experiments and also a common household item.
Dewar's design was quickly transformed into a commercial item in 1904 as two German glassblowers, Reinhold Burger and Albert Aschenbrenner, discovered that it could be used to keep cold drinks cold and warm drinks warm and invented a more robust flask design, which was suited for everyday use. . . . In his subsequent attempt to claim the rights to the invention, Dewar instead lost a court case to the company.
The vacuum flask was designed and invented by Scottish scientist Sir James Dewar in 1892 as a result of his research in the field of cryogenics and is sometimes called a Dewar flask in his honour. While performing experiments in determining the specific heat of the element palladium, Dewar made a brass chamber that he enclosed in another chamber to keep the palladium at its desired temperature. He evacuated the air between the two chambers, creating a partial vacuum to keep the temperature of the contents stable. Dewar refused to patent his invention, and the flask, as developed by others using new materials such as glass and aluminium, became a significant tool for chemical experiments and also a common household item.
Dewar's design was quickly transformed into a commercial item in 1904 as two German glassblowers, Reinhold Burger and Albert Aschenbrenner, discovered that it could be used to keep cold drinks cold and warm drinks warm and invented a more robust flask design, which was suited for everyday use. . . . In his subsequent attempt to claim the rights to the invention, Dewar instead lost a court case to the company.
> it could be used to keep cold drinks cold and warm drinks warm
The classic dad joke: So if I put my cold beer and my hot soup in there, how does it know which is which?
The classic dad joke: So if I put my cold beer and my hot soup in there, how does it know which is which?
Or a warm beer and gazpacho.
I see this as the central plot device of a great new TV streaming series!
With all the quirkiness of the 70s and giving Westworld a run for its money ;)
With all the quirkiness of the 70s and giving Westworld a run for its money ;)
Woody Allen already wrote the pilot with "Sleeper" (1973).
https://youtu.be/D2fYguIX17Q
https://youtu.be/D2fYguIX17Q
"Welcome to the world of tomorrow!"
Is the title of the series a secret?
Futurama?
As someone that has frozen cells down many times successfully, I don’t think this will ever work for bodies.
If you could save your DNA and a few cells and be cloned at a later date is that good enough for you? No memories but the same code. Is that still “you”? It’s like being an identical twin of yourself.
If you could save your DNA and a few cells and be cloned at a later date is that good enough for you? No memories but the same code. Is that still “you”? It’s like being an identical twin of yourself.
No, that's not good enough, software (beyond epigenetics) is what matters here. I would say, that personality is the key thing that one might want to preserve. Ideally, memories as well, the more intact they are, the better.
If possible, running it on the original hardware (i.e. the same brain) will satisfy people who believe in continuity of consciousness. (People hesitant to use a teletransporter[0])
Even a computer-simulated mind based on a scan of the original brain would I think be more 'me' than my clone.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox
If possible, running it on the original hardware (i.e. the same brain) will satisfy people who believe in continuity of consciousness. (People hesitant to use a teletransporter[0])
Even a computer-simulated mind based on a scan of the original brain would I think be more 'me' than my clone.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox
For me, I think it might help ease the pain of death. I like my code, I want it to continue on. The more we see twin studies the more we see that code is maybe all there is.
Sure my clone will have different experiences but I think it would think just like I do. It has different memories and experiences but I will have different experiences from here on out too. It’s the reaction to them that makes me, me.
Sure my clone will have different experiences but I think it would think just like I do. It has different memories and experiences but I will have different experiences from here on out too. It’s the reaction to them that makes me, me.
Can you imagine any experiment that will adjust your belief? Show you that there is a chance it might work for bodies?
Yes, any experiment that freezes down something large and multicellular like an organ and thaws it and it works.
The reason freezing cells works is that they have no large 3d structure and the surface area to volume works with the slow freeze down process (1 deg. C per min.) and rapid thawing (as fast as possible) necessary for them to survive.
The reason freezing cells works is that they have no large 3d structure and the surface area to volume works with the slow freeze down process (1 deg. C per min.) and rapid thawing (as fast as possible) necessary for them to survive.
Cold resistant frogs fit your description. Hyla japonica withstands freezing to -30°C They function just fine after thawing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_tree_frog#Cold_resist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_tree_frog#Cold_resist...
I would love to know how this is handled in other parts of the world. Particularly the regulatory side because this is a potential health nightmare for OH&S if not the water table and the neighbourhood.
The escrow requirements for maintainance of state would be interesting too. Who exactly benefits from the spend? Is this contestable by a future generation? In effect, does the corpse become property?
Perpetual funding is a pretty bizarre concept, but that said the entire 'south sea bubble' debt exist inside British gilts for hundreds of years, they only wiped them out recently at the same time as the WW1 debt, so carrying forward into the future does happen, albiet mostly at scale by governments.
I guess if you turned the dewer flasks into a freak show and charged, you might even be able to fund the cooldown by revenue.
The escrow requirements for maintainance of state would be interesting too. Who exactly benefits from the spend? Is this contestable by a future generation? In effect, does the corpse become property?
Perpetual funding is a pretty bizarre concept, but that said the entire 'south sea bubble' debt exist inside British gilts for hundreds of years, they only wiped them out recently at the same time as the WW1 debt, so carrying forward into the future does happen, albiet mostly at scale by governments.
I guess if you turned the dewer flasks into a freak show and charged, you might even be able to fund the cooldown by revenue.
We have this in Germany, in the Ruhr area. If they do not pump water non-stop, the complete area would be flooded[0].
This is because coal mining has been bringing the complete cities below the natural level of the water table. Costs are taken care of by a foundation.
[0]: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewigkeitskosten
Sadly no English version but some pictures.
This is because coal mining has been bringing the complete cities below the natural level of the water table. Costs are taken care of by a foundation.
[0]: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewigkeitskosten
Sadly no English version but some pictures.
If this article piqued your interest, Atrocity Guide has a fantastic video about the history of cryonics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ2YEESTQUI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ2YEESTQUI
>Cryonics — attempting to cryopreserve the human body — is widely considered a pseudoscience.
It's not really. It's an attempt to preserve the body and not much more of a science than me attempting to preserve some food by putting it in my freezer. Who knows if future technology will be able to bring people back? Claiming it definitely will not without evidence doesn't seem very scientific.
It's not really. It's an attempt to preserve the body and not much more of a science than me attempting to preserve some food by putting it in my freezer. Who knows if future technology will be able to bring people back? Claiming it definitely will not without evidence doesn't seem very scientific.
> The family of a man frozen in 1978 eventually got tired of paying for him. The facility offered to cut off his head and store it for free, but the family turned them down. Instead, the body was thawed, submerged in a vat of formaldehyde like a laboratory specimen, and buried in that condition.
What?!
What?!
How long before SpaceX starts up a service to dump these into a lunar lava tube for hyper-long term storage?
They're relatively warm places so are conjectured to make a nice(ish) place for the quick rather than the dead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube
Wouldn't it be better to be put into a crater that never sees sunlight? Ideally with some protection against micro-meteorites. There's still the radiation issue...
> ten months had elapsed between his death and freezing, so his body was in rotten shape — no pun intended — from the get-go and was eventually thawed
There is literally no way that pun was unintended. Were it so, it’d be easier to just choose a different word rather than note it’s unintentionality.
There is literally no way that pun was unintended. Were it so, it’d be easier to just choose a different word rather than note it’s unintentionality.
Yeah they probably were in that deal just for the easy money.
How could this be published without mentioning the Bide-a-Wee Scandal touched on in Larry Niven fiction?
I was going to say that Larry Niven wrote a novel (A World out of Time?) in which the cryogenically frozen were resurrected to perform menial or otherwise undesirable jobs, as a form of indentured servitude. IIRC, trust funds set up by the deceased to pay for their preservation and resurrection had been dissolved on the grounds that they were strangling the economy.
If Bide-a-Wee was not from this novel, a reference would be much appreciated, as my cursory search has not found it.
If Bide-a-Wee was not from this novel, a reference would be much appreciated, as my cursory search has not found it.
Trust funds: Pierce the Checker (Peersa) said, "The dead cannot own money. The courts decided that long ago."
"Corsicles" had to pay The State back for storage and resurrection, as you mentioned, which was the reasoning behind the Bussard Ramjet training Corbell received.
Niven sidestepped the whole "how to correctly resurrect a frozen person" problem by claiming that Corbell's memory/personality were somehow extracted from his corpse (destroying the body completely), and then used to reanimate a convicted felon. If Corbell failed his training, the felon's mind would be wiped and another corpsicle's personality would be tried.
That book introduced so many big ideas to the young me. It was the first Niven book I'd read; Ringworld was the second.
"Corsicles" had to pay The State back for storage and resurrection, as you mentioned, which was the reasoning behind the Bussard Ramjet training Corbell received.
Niven sidestepped the whole "how to correctly resurrect a frozen person" problem by claiming that Corbell's memory/personality were somehow extracted from his corpse (destroying the body completely), and then used to reanimate a convicted felon. If Corbell failed his training, the felon's mind would be wiped and another corpsicle's personality would be tried.
That book introduced so many big ideas to the young me. It was the first Niven book I'd read; Ringworld was the second.
"Corpsicles".
Bide-a-Wee was about organ harvesting. It is mentioned off-hand in various stories as a throwaway world-building detail.
It deserves a Wikipedia page.
It deserves a Wikipedia page.
I, Hatchet Jack ...do hearby leaveth my bear rifle to whatever finds it.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKUPu1epqnU&t=3m20s
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKUPu1epqnU&t=3m20s
great little summary about the state of cryonics. However, as an aside, absolutely hated those force-injected spoilers in large fonts scattered throughout the article. What is even the purpose of these annoying things?
[deleted]
In my opinion at least clawing desperately for more time on this world is a pretty bad idea. Say there is nothing after death, then every such advancement in life extension will create even more dread of dying because you can lose eternal life (in the ideal case). I'd personally be much more scared to live knowing that at any point I can lose possibly millions of years of experiences by dying.
disney on ice
Is there life after death? Why is there anything at all?
Sucks being an early adopter.
I thought the idea is the brain is going to be scanned and uploaded to the Matrix.
I think that’s the most likely successful outcome.
1) human mind can be simulated
2) human consciousness is totally dependent on physical connections of brain neurons
3) something like nanobots are able to determine the frozen brain connections despite the damage of being frozen
4) some organization is curious enough to do the work to bring you back
5) live your second life, hopefully in some type of humanoid android and not your great-great-great-grandkids PlayStation 25
The likelihood of all of that happening is probably pretty low. But you have 0% chance of coming back if you don’t get frozen.
1) human mind can be simulated
2) human consciousness is totally dependent on physical connections of brain neurons
3) something like nanobots are able to determine the frozen brain connections despite the damage of being frozen
4) some organization is curious enough to do the work to bring you back
5) live your second life, hopefully in some type of humanoid android and not your great-great-great-grandkids PlayStation 25
The likelihood of all of that happening is probably pretty low. But you have 0% chance of coming back if you don’t get frozen.
[deleted]
My somewhat eccentric friend Keith Henson once performed the grisly task of "converting whole body to neuro", which the article mentions: downgrading some of Alcor's full-body customers to head-only by removing their heads from their bodies with a chainsaw, or as Alcore's illustrated report delicately explained, "a rapid conversion to neuropreservation was done using a high-speed electric chain saw."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson
Keith is quite a character, who also successfully performed one of the most hilarious trolls ever against Scientology lawyers:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20791891
>Just be glad you didn't have to explain an in joke about ftp sites, the local loopback address, and a troll, in a deposition, under oath, to Scientology lawyers, like Keith Henson did.
The Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition, page 93-94:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/transhumanism/1990-regis-greatmam...
>Finally some evidence about the success of cryonics emerged from among the ranks of the frozen themselves. Not that they were revived, they were only defrosted. Or at least parts of them were.
>In November of 1983, for the first time ever, a cryonics firm conducted autopsies on the defrosted mortal remains of two Trans Time patients who had been converted to neuro. The parties in question were a married couple who had wanted to be frozen after death. They hadn’t had the required lump sum in advance, but Trans Time didn’t want to turn them away, so it accepted them on a contingency, pay-as-you-go basis. Monthly maintenance costs would be covered by their loving son.
>When the son’s parents died, Trans Time suspended them as whole-body patients, which was their desire, and for a number of years everything went along exactly as planned. But then the son himself died, in an automobile accident, after which the monthly payments ceased. Trans Time kept the parents frozen for a while, but it was clear that sooner or later something had to be done. It was a private company, operating without government support — indeed, often in the teeth of government opposition — and could not afford an extended period of unpaid maintenance, especially when for fifteen out of its sixteen years of existence the company had run at loss.
>But then the Alcor Life Extension Foundation came to the rescue. It would take care of the frozen parents, essentially on a charity basis, but only on the condition that they could be “converted” first, which is to say, converted from whole-body to neuro, the latter being far less expensive than the former. “The same capsule that you put a whole body in,” Saul Kent once explained, “you can probably put twenty heads in.”
>This, of course, meant that the heads had to come off while the patients were still frozen. Not that this was much of a problem. As Alcor’s illustrated report on the case explains, “a rapid conversion to neuropreservation was done using a high-speed electric chain saw.”
>This was now a golden opportunity to see how frozen bodies actually fared over their years in storage—nine years for the husband, five for the wife. So the Alcor men thawed out and autopsied the newly decapitated bodies.
>There was both bad and good news. “The most unexpected finding as a result of these autopsies,” says the report, “is the discovery of serious fracturing in all of the suspension patients.” There were fractures in the outer skin, in the subcutaneous fat, in the blood vessels next to the heart, in the arteries and veins. The right lung of one patient was cracked almost in half, as was the liver, and there were open wounds on the hands and right wrist.
>This was not encouraging, but it was all too easy to lose one’s perspective. The fact of the matter was that the injuries suffered by these frozen corpses were no worse than what’s seen in hospital shock-trauma units every day of the week—broken (if not absent) arms and legs, and so on—but many of these people end up recovering. The fact that the frozen corpses were not in pristine shape was not by itself any cause for alarm.
>The good news was that much of the bodies survived perfectly intact. The palms of the hands, the soles of the feet, and other structures were all in fine shape. As for the brains, they remained in suspension and were not examined.
>To Alcor, the whole thing was a learning experience. The initial suspensions had not been perfect, but all things considered, the patients came through the whole process about as well as anyone could expect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson
Keith is quite a character, who also successfully performed one of the most hilarious trolls ever against Scientology lawyers:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20791891
>Just be glad you didn't have to explain an in joke about ftp sites, the local loopback address, and a troll, in a deposition, under oath, to Scientology lawyers, like Keith Henson did.
The Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition, page 93-94:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/transhumanism/1990-regis-greatmam...
>Finally some evidence about the success of cryonics emerged from among the ranks of the frozen themselves. Not that they were revived, they were only defrosted. Or at least parts of them were.
>In November of 1983, for the first time ever, a cryonics firm conducted autopsies on the defrosted mortal remains of two Trans Time patients who had been converted to neuro. The parties in question were a married couple who had wanted to be frozen after death. They hadn’t had the required lump sum in advance, but Trans Time didn’t want to turn them away, so it accepted them on a contingency, pay-as-you-go basis. Monthly maintenance costs would be covered by their loving son.
>When the son’s parents died, Trans Time suspended them as whole-body patients, which was their desire, and for a number of years everything went along exactly as planned. But then the son himself died, in an automobile accident, after which the monthly payments ceased. Trans Time kept the parents frozen for a while, but it was clear that sooner or later something had to be done. It was a private company, operating without government support — indeed, often in the teeth of government opposition — and could not afford an extended period of unpaid maintenance, especially when for fifteen out of its sixteen years of existence the company had run at loss.
>But then the Alcor Life Extension Foundation came to the rescue. It would take care of the frozen parents, essentially on a charity basis, but only on the condition that they could be “converted” first, which is to say, converted from whole-body to neuro, the latter being far less expensive than the former. “The same capsule that you put a whole body in,” Saul Kent once explained, “you can probably put twenty heads in.”
>This, of course, meant that the heads had to come off while the patients were still frozen. Not that this was much of a problem. As Alcor’s illustrated report on the case explains, “a rapid conversion to neuropreservation was done using a high-speed electric chain saw.”
>This was now a golden opportunity to see how frozen bodies actually fared over their years in storage—nine years for the husband, five for the wife. So the Alcor men thawed out and autopsied the newly decapitated bodies.
>There was both bad and good news. “The most unexpected finding as a result of these autopsies,” says the report, “is the discovery of serious fracturing in all of the suspension patients.” There were fractures in the outer skin, in the subcutaneous fat, in the blood vessels next to the heart, in the arteries and veins. The right lung of one patient was cracked almost in half, as was the liver, and there were open wounds on the hands and right wrist.
>This was not encouraging, but it was all too easy to lose one’s perspective. The fact of the matter was that the injuries suffered by these frozen corpses were no worse than what’s seen in hospital shock-trauma units every day of the week—broken (if not absent) arms and legs, and so on—but many of these people end up recovering. The fact that the frozen corpses were not in pristine shape was not by itself any cause for alarm.
>The good news was that much of the bodies survived perfectly intact. The palms of the hands, the soles of the feet, and other structures were all in fine shape. As for the brains, they remained in suspension and were not examined.
>To Alcor, the whole thing was a learning experience. The initial suspensions had not been perfect, but all things considered, the patients came through the whole process about as well as anyone could expect.
According to Wikipedia, more than 9 million people in the US have reported Near Death Experience (NDE) [0]. Some common traits that were reported:
- A sense/awareness of being dead.
- A sense of peace, well-being, and painlessness. Positive emotions. A sense of removal from the world.
- An out-of-body experience.
- A perception of one's body from an outside position, sometimes observing medical professionals performing resuscitation efforts.
- A "tunnel experience" or entering a darkness. A sense of moving up, or through, a passageway or staircase.
- A rapid movement toward and/or sudden immersion in a powerful light (or "Being of Light") which communicates telepathically with the person.
- An intense feeling of unconditional love and acceptance.
I'm not sure, but this feels relevant juxtaposed the prospect of returning to life in a body of unsure quality, with all my friends, relatives and acquaintances long gone, into a world that I can not expect to understand much of. Even if it ever became possible, which I sincerely doubt.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
- A sense/awareness of being dead.
- A sense of peace, well-being, and painlessness. Positive emotions. A sense of removal from the world.
- An out-of-body experience.
- A perception of one's body from an outside position, sometimes observing medical professionals performing resuscitation efforts.
- A "tunnel experience" or entering a darkness. A sense of moving up, or through, a passageway or staircase.
- A rapid movement toward and/or sudden immersion in a powerful light (or "Being of Light") which communicates telepathically with the person.
- An intense feeling of unconditional love and acceptance.
I'm not sure, but this feels relevant juxtaposed the prospect of returning to life in a body of unsure quality, with all my friends, relatives and acquaintances long gone, into a world that I can not expect to understand much of. Even if it ever became possible, which I sincerely doubt.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
That’s hardly the only or even most common response. As mentioned in that Wikipedia link people often report:
anguish
distress
a void
devastation
vast emptiness
etc
Yeah that wikipedia article did not support the comment very well at all.
Except it is literally what is says under the heading "Common elements": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Common_e...
The very first paragraph says:
A near-death experience (NDE) is a profound personal experience associated with death or impending death which researchers claim share similar characteristics. When positive, such experiences may encompass a variety of sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light. When negative, such experiences may include sensations of anguish, distress, a void, devastation, and vast emptiness. People often report seeing hellish places and things like their own rendition of "the devil."[1][2][3]
A post only listing the positive reports is wildly biased. Collect enough data and ignore whatever doesn’t support your views and you can eventually find “evidence” to support anything. You can use the same methods to show NDE are positive, absolutely horrific, or shockingly mundane.
A near-death experience (NDE) is a profound personal experience associated with death or impending death which researchers claim share similar characteristics. When positive, such experiences may encompass a variety of sensations including detachment from the body, feelings of levitation, total serenity, security, warmth, the experience of absolute dissolution, and the presence of a light. When negative, such experiences may include sensations of anguish, distress, a void, devastation, and vast emptiness. People often report seeing hellish places and things like their own rendition of "the devil."[1][2][3]
A post only listing the positive reports is wildly biased. Collect enough data and ignore whatever doesn’t support your views and you can eventually find “evidence” to support anything. You can use the same methods to show NDE are positive, absolutely horrific, or shockingly mundane.
Fair enough. Point taken.
But how many have had the unpleasant experience? The first reference to such is a paper by Nancy bush and Bruce Greyson, which opens the study thus: "The great majority of near-death experiences (NDEs) reported publicly over the past four decades have been described as pleasant, even glorious. Almost unnoticed in the euphoria about them has been the sobering fact that not all NDEs are so affirming. Some are deeply disturbing."[0]
So most are positive, a minority are deeply disturbing. The overarching purpose here was not however to paint any potential afterlife i glowing terms, it was to highlight the fact that there seems to be a widely (probably under-)reported process that we humans experience when we die. Which seems relevant in a discussion about cryogenics.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173534/
But how many have had the unpleasant experience? The first reference to such is a paper by Nancy bush and Bruce Greyson, which opens the study thus: "The great majority of near-death experiences (NDEs) reported publicly over the past four decades have been described as pleasant, even glorious. Almost unnoticed in the euphoria about them has been the sobering fact that not all NDEs are so affirming. Some are deeply disturbing."[0]
So most are positive, a minority are deeply disturbing. The overarching purpose here was not however to paint any potential afterlife i glowing terms, it was to highlight the fact that there seems to be a widely (probably under-)reported process that we humans experience when we die. Which seems relevant in a discussion about cryogenics.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173534/
The key wording here is:
> reported publicly
For various cultural reasons people rarely want to talk about negative NDE. This is why studies into the phenomenon that look for possible cases are more objective than interviewing people who come forth.
So a study like :”A 1975 study conducted by psychiatrist Raymond Moody, MD, PhD, on around 150 patients who all claimed to have witnessed an NDE stated that such an experience has nine steps.” Shows different results than the recent UK Clinical Trials Gateway where out of 465 patients none reported any visual memories.
> reported publicly
For various cultural reasons people rarely want to talk about negative NDE. This is why studies into the phenomenon that look for possible cases are more objective than interviewing people who come forth.
So a study like :”A 1975 study conducted by psychiatrist Raymond Moody, MD, PhD, on around 150 patients who all claimed to have witnessed an NDE stated that such an experience has nine steps.” Shows different results than the recent UK Clinical Trials Gateway where out of 465 patients none reported any visual memories.
In Buddhism, those people with the negative experiences are the ones who are going to experience a rebirth in a hell realm, unfortunately for an extremely long number of years (between 10^6 and 10^21 years)
It’s when we spend decades, generations even, trying to reanimate bodies without success but then finally we see signs of life. The first (and curiously, only) body tries to communicate with us and is rehabilitated for a decade before we finally hear their message: “don’t bother numb nuts, it’s better on the other side. Why are you all still wasting your time over here?”
If you ask people to describe their dreams and find similarities, it’s not reasonable to assume those dreams represent some kind of hidden reality rather than simply shared psychological responses and social influences. I don’t see why these reports should be treated any differently.
In "Frozen," Larry Johnson, a former executive at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Scottsdale, Ariz., writes that Williams' head was abused at the facility. Johnson claims a technician took baseball-like swings at Williams' frozen head with a monkey wrench.
What?