I was wondering why there isn't more talk of cryogenics in a forum such as this. I'm sure there are plenty of topics related to cryogenics both directly and indirectly that very relevant to the topics that are generally discussed in this forum. Let's not let good minds go to waste.
Byzantine: Paul: The whole point is that they're not dead. Prove it.
Paul: The whole point is that they're not dead.
Prove it.
Prove that they're not dead? First define "dead". People have fallen into frozen lakes, been submerged for an hour or more, and been revived with no ill effects. Hence the saying "he's not dead until he's warm and dead". Would you say he's dead when he's pulled out of the lake? Then what, he's resurrected at the hospital? Other organs can be "frozen" (actually, that's a misnomer - they don't freeze, they're vitrified) and stored indefinitely without damage - why is it difficult to believe that the same can be done with a brain? Unfreezing it presents something of a problem at the moment, sure, especially since it can only be done with individual organs, not the entire body as a unit, so it can't be kept alive if thawed, but there's no question that the brain is not actually dead (i.e., irretrievable) as long as it remains frozen.
Paul:but there's no question that the brain is not actually dead (i.e., irretrievable) as long as it remains frozen.
Again, you are going to have to prove that the brain's synaptic processes are in a suspended state as opposed to the cells being irreparably killed by freezing. Since you can't prove that other than by resort to speculation, a court has no reason to grant a frozen corpse rights that the living have to honor.
Byzantine: Paul:but there's no question that the brain is not actually dead (i.e., irretrievable) as long as it remains frozen. Again, you are going to have to prove that the brain's synaptic processes are in a suspended state as opposed to the cells being irreparably killed by freezing. Since you can't prove that other than by resort to speculation, a court has no reason to grant a frozen corpse rights that the living have to honor.
Why would they killed by "freezing"? The cells of other organs aren't killed by freezing. Is there some reason to think brain cells should be different? You can certainly look at samples under an electron microscope and see that they aren't badly damaged, etc.
(And since when do courts grant rights anyway?)
Paul:Why would they killed by "freezing"? The cells of other organs aren't killed by freezing. Is there some reason to think brain cells should be different? You can certainly look at samples under an electron microscope and see that they aren't badly damaged, etc. (And since when do courts grant rights anyway?)
Because when organs get cold enough, you die. The metabolic processes of the cells stop. The synapses stop firing. You don't respond to external stimuli.
Clarification: courts recognize rights. In the battle between the guy who's now having second thoughts about lugging your corpse around and your cold, stiff frame, the living are going to win unless you can prove by something other than speculation that you can be re-animated.
[Favoriting this thread.]
Byzantine: Because when organs get cold enough, you die. The metabolic processes of the cells stop. The synapses stop firing. You don't respond to external stimuli.
Sure...like the guy in the frozen lake...who can be warmed up and go on living - so was he alive or dead when he was in the water? I guess you say he was dead, but then death isn't necessarily fatal
Byzantine: guy who's now having second thoughts about lugging your corpse around and your cold, stiff frame
guy who's now having second thoughts about lugging your corpse around and your cold, stiff frame
Not "corpse", just "head". You can get your whole body frozen if you prefer, but there's very little chance of that being reversible; single organs (i.e., just your brain - they leave it in the skull for protection) can be done with little or no damage.
Eventually cells deprived of the body's metabolic processes deteriorate to the point that their functions cannot be restored. If you can prove otherwise, then perhaps Walt Disney's frozen corpsicle could be a legal person. But the technology at that point will be more along the lines of extending the lives and productivity of the living, who are a renewable resource. So regardless of legality, re-animation just doesn't appear profitable.
You, my friend, are going to die.
Byzantine: Eventually cells deprived of the body's metabolic processes deteriorate to the point that their functions cannot be restored.
Eventually cells deprived of the body's metabolic processes deteriorate to the point that their functions cannot be restored.
Not if they're frozen - there's no activity; no deterioration! (Live embryos can be stored indefinitely and reanimated, for example)
Byzantine: You, my friend, are going to die.
I wouldn't count on that, actually. Even without cryonics, life extension technologies can be expected to pay off within the lifetimes of most readers...
Embryos, sure. Brains ... not so much.
Paul: I wouldn't count on that, actually. Even without cryonics, life extension technologies can be expected to pay off within the lifetimes of most readers...
First, you need to overcome that pesky law of increasing entropy.
Byzantine: Embryos, sure. Brains ... not so much.
Because...?
Byzantine: First, you need to overcome that pesky law of increasing entropy.
Meaning what? That people can't be expected to live beyond the heat death of the universe?
Because brains are different than embryos. If you appear in court and say the corpse has a right in its continued deep freeze, you are going to be asked what is the viability of such technology. Your response will be that it is in the future. This is entirely speculative as opposed to the present fact that your corpse is cold and stiff. So in the battle between your corpse and the guy who doesn't want to pay for the refrigeration anymore, your corpse is going to lose.
And yes, even if we find a way to reverse the aging process, human beings will not last beyond the point where entropy increases to maximum.
Actually, it'll be when the sun goes red giant.
Colonizing other galaxies is an option too, you know. And by then it should be feasible and even well underway.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
I thought like you a short while ago. Death isn't exactly as cut and dry as it seems on first inspection. Many people who we claim are dead look just fine on the cellular level. Hours after "death" most of the things the body needs to function are still in place and ready to be used. Death is more like a social classification for people that we don't know how to wake up again. Obviously, past a certain point the information in the brain and other organs are destroyed, but that takes time to happen. It used to be the case that people who were in comas were "dead" but now we know that they can be revived in the future if we keep them going with nutrients and various pieces of equipment. In the future we may not consider people dead until much later than we do now. Perhaps, with freezing technology, even years.
Byzantine: Actually, it'll be when the sun goes red giant.
Not if we can make it to another star to use as a power source. By "we" I mean people living thousands of years from now.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Byzantine: Because brains are different than embryos.
Because brains are different than embryos.
Are you claiming this as an article of faith, or as a scientific fact?
Byzantine: So in the battle between your corpse and the guy who doesn't want to pay for the refrigeration anymore, your corpse is going to lose.
So in the battle between your corpse and the guy who doesn't want to pay for the refrigeration anymore, your corpse is going to lose.
The guy paying for the refrigeration and the guy being refrigerated should be one and the same. (And it's not a "corpse" unless it's dead, which is the point we're arguing)
You appear to be saying that a will is invalid because at the time it's executed the testator is dead and therefore has no rights that need to be respected.
Assuming we don't have technology either to control the sun or to go elsewhere by then, yes...so people alive today could possibly live to be over 5 billion years old :)
Can an individual legally assure (while he is alive) that his body becomes the property of whomever he wishes when he dies? If so, how? If not, why not?
"So again, you may find an altruistic person or group of people to safeguard the corpse from generation to generation, but if somebody along the line decides the mass of frozen hamburger meat is too much of a hassle, then the corpse has no legal recourse because it is not a legal person. "
Is it necessary that the person(s) be altruistic? And if there is a group that claims ownership to the corpse, then "if somebody along the line decides" the corpse is too much trouble, how could he legally dispose of it without violating the rights of the individuals within the group? And if this "somebody" is a part of the group, would it be necessary to acquire the consent of the other individuals in the group in order to make said decision about the corpse?
"the investor would have to be assured of the viability of the technology."
Not necessarily... If an investor didn't care one bit about the viability of the technology and instead preferred gambling his money away on it, this would be logical as each scenario involves subjective preferences.
"As things presently stand, there is no foreseeable way to reanimate frozen cells and hence, the expense of maintaining corpses in deep freeze is borne solely by people with enough disposable income to engage in this purely altruistic endeavour."
As we're well aware, action implies self-interest. If an individual freely engages in this endeavor, we can know that this individual prefers this state of affairs over alternative states of affairs. Hence no "pure altrusim"...
Byzantine: A person could pledge his future labor to someone in exchange for their bearing the cost of keeping his body in deep-freeze. However, the investor would have to be assured of the viability of the technology. As things presently stand, there is no foreseeable way to reanimate frozen cells and hence, the expense of maintaining corpses in deep freeze is borne solely by people with enough disposable income to engage in this purely altruistic endeavour.
A person could pledge his future labor to someone in exchange for their bearing the cost of keeping his body in deep-freeze. However, the investor would have to be assured of the viability of the technology. As things presently stand, there is no foreseeable way to reanimate frozen cells and hence, the expense of maintaining corpses in deep freeze is borne solely by people with enough disposable income to engage in this purely altruistic endeavour.
How it works is that the person who wants to be "frozen" pays the cryo company (e.g., Alcor or the Cryonics Institute) a chunk of money (something like $60,000 to $160,000 depending which company and whether you want your whole body or just your brain preserved, etc. - what you do is buy a life insurance policy that pays out to the cryo company, so you don't have to come with that amount in one chunk), which is invested and the return is used to pay the costs in perpetuity. There is no "altruist" involved.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap