POLL: Cryonics - do you want to be frozen when you die?

Joaz Banbeck · #1

I've noticed a slightly higher interest in cryonics among go players than the average person. The vast majority of the population has no interest in it, and seems to feel vaugely threatened by the idea.

I think that this is something that may grow rapidly in the next decade or so, as new technologies in organ suspension for transplant are becoming more common. The cost used to be around 150K USD, but is dropping. Some now advertise head-only for under 20K USD.

What's your opinion on it?

emeraldemon · #2

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/354/mistakes-were-made/

tj86430 · #3

My answer is not listed. It would be "No - why should I?"

Redundant · #4

I'll look into it in around 30 years if medical technology doesn't advance as hoped. I'm expecting that in around 30 years, the increase in life expectancy per year will exceed a year, due to some sort of antisenescence technologies.

Kirby · #5

I guess what I would prefer is to be frozen before I die. Then I can unfreeze in maybe a few hundred years, and see how things have changed.

Solomon · #6

As long as they don't take my frozen head, place it in a tuna can, and beat it with a monkey wrench then sure.

Sevis · #7

While I don't agree with any of the reasons listed against (except, maybe, test subject, but I'm not sure), I also haven't yet actively decided that I should get it -- I certainly won't have the money for the coming few years, only being a student. I also think it may be more polite to only get my head frozen, if anything, as I think my organs are still good enough to be of use for others.

All in all, if I die in the coming ten years, I expect it to be too rapid for cryogenics to be possible, or slow enough that I'll have time to choose.

wms · #8

Nah, with things as they stand now I don't want to be frozen. The chance of being unfrozen in any remotely living-ish state is too low. Why burden people with the cost of refilling my liquid nitrogen tap when I'll never come back anyway?

I also don't want to be preserved. That leaves cremation or a "natural burial", which is illegal is a lot of states anyway I hear, so I guess that cremation it is.

daniel_the_smith · #9

My answer would be "easier said than done"; there are several organizations that offer it and I'm still trying to decide who to use, plus getting all the paperwork together and verifying that family is OK* with it is not trivial.

For all you saying money is an issue-- it's normally funded via life insurance, which ought to be cheap if you are young and healthy. But if you, say, get cancer or something, it will suddenly become NOT cheap. So, if it's something you want to do, you should sign up while still healthy to maximize your chances of actually getting frozen.

Also, I agree with Kirby in cases of Alzheimer's, especially. It's not clear that there would be anything left worth freezing after someone dies of that. Unfortunately, I doubt very much that that will be legal in the US in my lifetime.

[*] at least to the point of not actively sabotaging you...

Kirby · **#10**

wms wrote:

...
I also don't want to be preserved. That leaves cremation or a "natural burial", which is illegal is a lot of states anyway I hear, so I guess that cremation it is.

I'm kind of afraid of being buried alive, actually. That'd be kind of freaky. I suppose being burned alive wouldn't be that much better, but it'd be over quicker, I'd think.

daniel_the_smith · **#11**

wms wrote:

...The chance of being unfrozen in any remotely living-ish state is too low....

Does this mean you doubt a resurrection is possible or that you think the future will be dystopic?

hyperpape · **#12**

wms wrote:

I also don't want to be preserved. That leaves cremation or a "natural burial", which is illegal is a lot of states anyway I hear, so I guess that cremation it is.

Wow, I'd never thought of that being illegal. I too like the idea of natural burial.

That said, a little bit of research suggests that it can be done in a number of places (http://naturalburial.coop/USA/). I expect to die rather close to one such location.

Edited for disambiguation.

Bantari · **#13**

What's stopping the good people from cryogenics to turn off the power on your fridge after having a bash at your expense?
Its not like you gonna come back and sue them...

Numsgil · **#14**

Redundant wrote:

I'll look into it in around 30 years if medical technology doesn't advance as hoped. I'm expecting that in around 30 years, the increase in life expectancy per year will exceed a year, due to some sort of antisenescence technologies.

This is actually my plan. My 401(k) is built around two central premises:

1. The last few hundred years of exponential growth of the economy is an anomaly. Eventually (in hundreds or thousands of years at the latest) exponential growth will give way to polynomial growth. So if you want to be rich(er than everyone else) you'd better be rich before that happens. Because afterwards wealth building is much harder.

2. There was a TED talk on this, but basically it's not at all farfetched that within our lifetimes life extension science will get to a point where the average life expectancy increases by 1 year every year. We'd basically have immortality then.

Combine 1 and 2 and it's almost irresponsible not to aim for a large enough nest egg that you can live off a part of the interest and continually reinvest the rest and grow the principal. I mean, who'd want to be immortal and only middle class? Blech.

Redundant · **#15**

Numsgil wrote:

There was a TED talk on this, but basically it's not at all farfetched that within our lifetimes life extension science will get to a point where the average life expectancy increases by 1 year every year. We'd basically have immortality then.

Aubrey de Grey? That was a really interesting talk.

daniel_the_smith · **#16**

Agree with both of the above.

Cryonics is best thought of as an ambulance ride to the future. Being cryonically suspended is the 2nd worst thing that can happen to you.

hyperpape · **#17**

Redundant wrote:

I'll look into it in around 30 years if medical technology doesn't advance as hoped. I'm expecting that in around 30 years, the increase in life expectancy per year will exceed a year, due to some sort of antisenescence technologies.

I'll bet against it. If I win, you pay me in 30 years, if you win I pay you in 100. We can negotiate an appropriate discount rate.

Joaz Banbeck · **#18**

Bantari wrote:

What's stopping the good people from cryogenics to turn off the power on your fridge after having a bash at your expense?
Its not like you gonna come back and sue them...

The behavior is monitored by the living who have already paid. They don't want to see their thousands of dollars misused, because they can't get it back. They, like any other investor, keep an eye on their investment. Right now, for every one person who is frozen there are ten paid up members who are still alive and breathing. That's ten guardian angels per person keeping the management honest.

Joaz Banbeck · **#19**

tj86430 wrote:

My answer is not listed. It would be "No - why should I?"

Why do you want to be alive next week? Assuming that you do, it is really just a difference in scale. It is logically difficult to be in favor of the latter but not the former.

Numsgil · **#20**

Redundant wrote:

Numsgil wrote:

There was a TED talk on this, but basically it's not at all farfetched that within our lifetimes life extension science will get to a point where the average life expectancy increases by 1 year every year. We'd basically have immortality then.

Aubrey de Grey? That was a really interesting talk.

Yes. Clicky for the curious.

He's really the most articulate crazy homeless man I've ever listened to

POLL: Cryonics - do you want to be frozen when you die?

Who is online