PDA

View Full Version : Anyone want to be a Cryonaut?


Wolfman
6th February 2007, 11:51 PM
Okay, this is a slightly more fanciful thread than some others I've started, but a topic that I've done more than a little musing upon (I'm not quite sure what that says about me).

First, to define a "cryonaut"; it is a term that has been used in a few science fiction stories to describe someone who uses cryonics as a way of 'traveling' through time (being frozen now, re-awoken at some time in the future). This would, for me, be something that I'd absolutely love to do. Get frozen for 100 years, then wake up for 2-3 years to see what things are like at that time. Get frozen for another 100 years, then resuscitated again. And just keep following this pattern. Even with current medical knowledge, I've got a reasonable expectation of 30-40 more years of life, which would let me see (albeit in a rather fleeting manner) around a thousand years of human history. If one makes the reasonable assumption that they will be able to extend human life even longer by that time (which is probably one of the most reasonable assumptions being made here), then I've got the potential to see even more.

Sadly, there is the 'practical' side to this...and there are a number of problems in this regard:

1) Cryonics is still unproven. There is no proof that cryonics actually works. There is some circumstantial evidence (freezing and resuscitation of small mammals, for example), but even the most adamant proponents of cryonics acknowledge that it is currently beyond the scope of scientific knowledge to bring a cryonicly frozen human being back to life. Even if it eventually proved to be possible, we have no way of knowing whether or not the current methods of freezing are, in fact, the proper/best methods to use.

2) It is illegal to be frozen via cryonics until after you've died a 'natural' death. A person who is healthy and wishes to be frozen is not allowed to do so. Never mind the challenges of freezing and resuscitating a person, on top of that you must fix whatever it is (old age, cancer, etc.) that has killed the person in the first place. It makes the odds significantly longer.

3) Methodologies and theories vary, and have no way of verifying them. For example, many cryonics facilities state that the only organ that it is really important to preserve is the brain; and freezing just a head allows for less trauma to the brain than does freezing the entire body. Their argument is that in the future, technology will advance to the point where a new body can be grown for the head. Now for me, I find that just a little too far into the bizarre and unreal. Even if they could do such a thing, what about the legal/ethical implications? Would not the production of a new human body for the old head mean also producing a head which would subsequently have to be removed? Would that not constitute murder?

And as a cryonaut, I can't say that I'm terribly keen on the idea of having my head repeatedly cut off, and a new body grown for me every 100 years. Ugh, nope -- I'm not gonna' go that route. Which means full body cryonic preservation (but given current technology, that means greater potential damage to my brain).

4) Legal ambiguities -- under current laws, once I am frozen, I am legally dead. That means I cannot own any property. What is my legal status then...especially when brought back to life? I'm sure I could set up legal trusts that would manage the financial and bureaucratic aspects of keeping me frozen, but there is simply no legal framework as to how to deal with a person in such a situation.

5) Then, of course, there are the problems related to an unpredictable future. Will future societies be willing to resuscitate me, even if they are able to do so? What if I'm resuscitated into a society that has a dictatorship, or is a post-nuclear wasteland? I guess these are unknowables that I'd just have to risk, if I engaged in such a venture.

So, at present, the actual likelihood of me becoming a 'cryonaut' seem to be virtually non-existent. Before I'd even consider it, I'd want to see proof that the process (both the freezing and the resuscitation) was reliable; I'd need to find a country where it was legal for me to freeze myself before dying a 'natural' death; and I'd have to have the financial resources to justify a reasonable expectation of being able to finance my ongoing refrigeration.

When I talk about this, the vast majority of people think I'm absolutely nuts; but there are always a few who get that "Wow, that'd be really cool" look in their eyes. Of course, I get asked tons of questions about this.

"What about your friends, your family, etc.? Wouldn't you miss them?" Well, yes, I'm sure I would. But I've always been a traveler, quite footloose, and don't have much problem with putting old connections behind me. I tend to look towards what is coming, not what I've left behind.

"How would you live or support yourself in such societies?" Actually, I'd anticipate being something of a celebrity. And the longer I did it, the more of a celebrity I'd be. Granted, this is not guaranteed, but I consider it a reasonable expectation.

"What if you were never resuscitated?" Well, I guess I'd never know it, would I? I'm an atheist, so if I die, that's it, end of story. And while some people find it bizarre, I think that dying what is essentially a completely painless death (simply never to be resuscitated again) in the pursuit of such a grand adventure as this (to see hundreds/thousands of years of human development) would be more than worth the risk.

I'm just curious to hear what others think in this regard. Although I'm sure that some discussion will inevitably revolve around the practical issues of whether this is possible or not, what I'd really like to hear more is discussion of "if this were proven to be possible", would it be something that you'd consider?

athon
7th February 2007, 12:03 AM
Read Richard Morgan's 'Altered Carbon'. Cortical stacks all round!

That would be cool.

Or even better, the zero tau in Peter E. Hamilton's 'Night's dawn' trilogy.

Athon

KingMerv00
7th February 2007, 12:03 AM
I don't think so. Even if I assume it is safe, I would miss my friends and family.

Can I kidnap them and bring them along too?

wollery
7th February 2007, 12:05 AM
Dude, book me the cryochamber next to yours! :)

Seriously, I'd love to do that, but like you I'd need to see good evidence that it works. There's no way I'd be the guinea pig for cryonics! Sadly I don't think that the technology to make it possible will be around in my lifetime, there's just too much we don't know.

Pidge
7th February 2007, 12:45 AM
Corpsicle, right?

Wolfman
7th February 2007, 01:02 AM
Read Richard Morgan's 'Altered Carbon'. Cortical stacks all round!

That would be cool.

Or even better, the zero tau in Peter E. Hamilton's 'Night's dawn' trilogy.

Athon
Actually, Peter Hamilton was one of the first sci-fi writers I'm familiar with to use the term "cryonaut", and his "Neutronium Alchemist" trilogy features a character who is a cryonaut.

I actually came up with the idea myself years before I saw others writing about it; but have enjoyed reading stories that use the concept.

Wolfman
7th February 2007, 01:03 AM
Dude, book me the cryochamber next to yours! :)

Seriously, I'd love to do that, but like you I'd need to see good evidence that it works. There's no way I'd be the guinea pig for cryonics! Sadly I don't think that the technology to make it possible will be around in my lifetime, there's just too much we don't know.
Yeah...but you could just get yourself frozen until they have the technology...oh...wait... :cool:

A secondary question for everyone -- if you were dying of a terminal disease, one which you have reasonable expectation could be cured in the future, would you opt for cryonic preservation at your death? You've got nothing to lose...

wollery
7th February 2007, 01:23 AM
Yeah...but you could just get yourself frozen until they have the technology...oh...wait... :cool::D

A secondary question for everyone -- if you were dying of a terminal disease, one which you have reasonable expectation could be cured in the future, would you opt for cryonic preservation at your death? You've got nothing to lose...That would depend.

I don't have any kids, but I might in the future, and if so then I would have to ask, would the cost of the cryogenic freezing detract significantly from their future? If the answer were yes then I'd just get cremated (after death, obviously).

Which actually brings me to another point. Would you look for your descendents?

Wolfman
7th February 2007, 02:10 AM
Which actually brings me to another point. Would you look for your descendents?
Me, personally? Probably not. I'm unmarried, no kids. Have a brother and sister, but both are adopted, and we're not very close. So, unless I were to have kids, there really wouldn't be much in the way of descendants to look for.

But hey...probably I could find women who'd wanna' have babies with a cryonaut, so perhaps I'd have kids every hundred years or so? Wouldn't that result in a complicated family tree? People separated by hundreds of years who are biologically half-brothers/sisters of each other?

Dogdoctor
7th February 2007, 11:34 AM
The technology as it exists right now results in huge cracks and splits forming in your brain and probably other tissues. To me fixing this seems so to be a much more significant problem compared to fixing the causes of death from organic causes as long as they started the cryonic process imediately on death.

Amapola
7th February 2007, 11:46 AM
Being of a practical nature, boring though it may be, I have to ask - do you really think they are going to be able to keep the power on for that long? Granted I live in the middle of nowhere, and our power lines are strung up on dead trees and fence posts, but still - even places more civilized than this have trouble with the power from time to time. I seem to recall a hospital in New Orleans that lost a lot of frozen research material when hurricane Katrina hit....... I guess I'm just skeptical that the power will stay on for that long. Or that someone would be interested in paying the bill for said power for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Wolfman
7th February 2007, 12:17 PM
The technology as it exists right now results in huge cracks and splits forming in your brain and probably other tissues. To me fixing this seems so to be a much more significant problem compared to fixing the causes of death from organic causes as long as they started the cryonic process imediately on death.
I'd be curious as to where this particular claim comes from...could you please provide some documentation? I've seen plenty of examples of cryonically preserved brains and other tissues that have no cracks, splits, etc. Yes, crystalization would cause such damage...but cryonic procedures avoid that altogether. They don't actually "freeze", they "vitrify" (more on vitrification here (http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/vitrify.html)). Your sources or references, please?
Being of a practical nature, boring though it may be, I have to ask - do you really think they are going to be able to keep the power on for that long? Granted I live in the middle of nowhere, and our power lines are strung up on dead trees and fence posts, but still - even places more civilized than this have trouble with the power from time to time. I seem to recall a hospital in New Orleans that lost a lot of frozen research material when hurricane Katrina hit....... I guess I'm just skeptical that the power will stay on for that long. Or that someone would be interested in paying the bill for said power for hundreds or even thousands of years.
Every cryonics facilities has multiple redundancy power systems -- besides a main system that is hooked into the regular power grid, they have several backup systems that are independent, and capable of operating for months without outside power. I'd have to think that any catastrophe that would result in the loss of power for more time than that would render my own resuscitation pretty much redundant anyway.

As far as payment goes, that's why I said I'd have to have a fair chunk of money, also...enough to set up a trust fund that would be able to reliably cover costs for as long as necessary. But I wouldn't see that as being for "hundreds or even thousands of years"...I'd expect that when I'm brought back to life after the first hundred years, I'd be something of a celebrity, and be able to make more money that way. If I didn't have enough money to reasonably cover my costs for the next hundred years or so, I likely wouldn't go under again.

Kilgore Trout
7th February 2007, 12:33 PM
There's a lot of uncertainty about the whole affair, but the one that stops me cold is your #5 and being revived into a worse environment. But then, I'm one to think the whole global warming thing is unsolvable.

And come to think of it, another problem might be the people at the facilities. Even if you could set things up legally in such a manner to provide payment, it's still putting an awful lot of trust into people that haven't even been born yet. Along with the 'global warming thing' I also tend to distrust my fellow human being.

Maybe I'm being a bit overly pessimistic but as they say, a pessimist is never disappointed. ;)

ClintonHammond
7th February 2007, 12:39 PM
With even passable nano-technology repairing the cellular damage from cryo-suspension wouldn't be that difficult....

If it was likely any time soon, I'd be all over it like a fat kid on the last Smartie!! Just for the ability to drop in ever few hundred years and check up on the progress of the human race. Of course the worst outcome would be no change at all!

Keep coming back and back and back until we have the tech to leave the body behind forever... then the adventure REALLY begins!

If I can't be Dave Bowman, I'll settle for being Frank Poole!
(You need to have read "3001" to get this....)


Friends/Family? Pfffft! They come and go anyway.... too transient to be much of a factor either way.

Dogdoctor
7th February 2007, 01:04 PM
I'd be curious as to where this particular claim comes from...could you please provide some documentation? I've seen plenty of examples of cryonically preserved brains and other tissues that have no cracks, splits, etc. Yes, crystalization would cause such damage...but cryonic procedures avoid that altogether. They don't actually "freeze", they "vitrify" (more on vitrification here (http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/vitrify.html)). Your sources or references, please?



There was a long winded thread about cryogenics recently (6months or so ago). The proponents of cryonics provided the resources online. When I get time, I can go look them up again or you can if you care to. Or perhaps you can show me your studies? I think perhaps you are looking at studies done with individual organs whereas even if they are just cryonically preserving a head using current vitrification processes there are splits or fissures that occur in the brain, less than without vitrification but still a significant factor. The cryoninc proponents seemed happy to have only a couple major fissures in a frozen head's brain. They drill holes into the skull to look at the surface for fissures.
edited to add: Tissue between the fissures looks normal.

Gbob
7th February 2007, 01:07 PM
I wouldn't do it while my son was in school, but after college?

Yeah, what the heck. Wake me for TAM 2134.

Or if we develop the secret of immortality. That's worth a wake up.

Schneibster
7th February 2007, 01:58 PM
At this point, it's tantamount to death- so I'd say, if I was gonna go anyway in the near future I might consider it, otherwise, I'm happy where I am.

Lonewulf
7th February 2007, 02:01 PM
I'm with Schneibster (gotta love the name...), except that I most likely wouldn't want to do it even if I was close to death. I'd rather go see the world or do something with what time I had, instead of die prematurely.

While I'm all for methods for increasing longetivity of humans, I don't think that this route is a good idea at all. It's a waste of resources and, in the end, highly unlikely to reach fruition.

Dogdoctor
7th February 2007, 04:38 PM
Here is a link to the thread and I am mistaken that someone provided scientific evidence but instead it was an opinion from a supposed expert in cryonics.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1707692#post1707692
I think there are links somewhere that lead to data showing these large cracks occur. I found them long ago. If I have time I will look some more.

CapelDodger
7th February 2007, 04:41 PM
I don't think so. Even if I assume it is safe, I would miss my friends and family.
Quite. While superficially attractive, it's a one-way trip. I'll settle for seeing how things turn out in the medium-term (hopefully not just the short-term).

CapelDodger
7th February 2007, 04:44 PM
Or if we develop the secret of immortality. That's worth a wake up.
What's it worth to the people who'll wake you up? Amusement value? Given immortality, there'll be a lot of call for that.

SimonD
7th February 2007, 05:13 PM
I thought that this thread was about Lisa Nowak

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/love-triangle-drama-a-test-for-space-program/2007/02/07/1170524163486.html

Cry-onaut!! :)

Roboramma
7th February 2007, 06:21 PM
Assuming it worked reliably, I'm not sure I'd want to do in for 100 years. But 20? That might be cool.
Cultural changes would have occured, but not enough that I wouldn't be able to make sense of society anymore. Some of my friends and family would probably have died, but some would still be around, and even though we might have a hard time relating, at least I could probably count on them to help me settle in to this new society a little more easily. They'd remember the way things were and help to tell me how to adapt to how they are now.

Then, after a few years of getting used to the cultural changes that have taken place, and making some new friends (my own age) who I could expect to be around 20 years later (and maybe getting to know neices and nephews as well so that I'd still have family 20 years later), I might go in again. Those few years would set me up to be ready for the next 20 year transition.

Sure, I wouldn't see as far, but I'd probably have a much easier time of it, and I'd probably understand what I was seeing far better. Also, it's easier to be certain that you'll be woken up 20 years from now than 100. Hell, if your friends and family are still around, they might be expected to fight for you if there's any uncertainty about doing so.

On the other hand your expectation of celebrity would probably be downplayed in this scenario.

Wolfman
7th February 2007, 08:47 PM
There's a lot of uncertainty about the whole affair, but the one that stops me cold is your #5 and being revived into a worse environment. But then, I'm one to think the whole global warming thing is unsolvable.

And come to think of it, another problem might be the people at the facilities. Even if you could set things up legally in such a manner to provide payment, it's still putting an awful lot of trust into people that haven't even been born yet. Along with the 'global warming thing' I also tend to distrust my fellow human being.

Maybe I'm being a bit overly pessimistic but as they say, a pessimist is never disappointed. ;)
I guess my response to that would be simply that I've got no more guarantee that some sort of disaster won't happen during my own natural lifetime (nuclear attacks, planet struck by asteroid, global warming, etc.). I think an astronaut going to the moon (or even moreso to Mars) faces a greater direct risk in this regard than I would. Its very much a personal thing...but for me, the risk would be worth it.

luchog
8th February 2007, 01:31 PM
"How would you live or support yourself in such societies?" Actually, I'd anticipate being something of a celebrity. And the longer I did it, the more of a celebrity I'd be. Granted, this is not guaranteed, but I consider it a reasonable expectation.

There's also a good chance you could end up like the "Revivals" in Warren Ellis's Transmetropolitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmetropolitan)

marting
8th February 2007, 04:34 PM
Sure. When Hell freezes over. Then I'd be in good company.

Khyron
9th February 2007, 03:13 PM
Oddly enough, I was just re-reading the novel A World Out of Time, by Larry Niven. The main character had himself frozen to allow him to see the future. It goes the route of "well, we never figured out how to thaw thier bodies safely, but we figured out how to copy personalities - and overwriting criminals with these damned time-tourists gives us a good source of slave labor."

Wolfman
9th February 2007, 10:32 PM
I'm opting for more of a Star Trek-ish future (that is, the original series), where not only do we have interstellar space travel and numerous different races of aliens, but women throughout the universe have large busts and wear little clothing. Perhaps bump into Barbarella somewhere along the line, too ;)