None of this has happened yet
In doing research while watching Fringe episode “Momentum Deferred” from the second season of Fringe for the most recent Mindless Diversions Bookclub! post, I asked the question “Do people still do cryogenics?”
In googling, I found out that, boy howdy, do they ever. I found out about Alcor. My immediate takeaway was that the “cost to fund through life insurance can be as modest as $1 to $5 per day depending on your age, health, and the type of policy you choose.”
So let’s do some back of the envelope math here, shall we?
5 bucks per day times 365.25 days per year times 100 years is…
182625 bucks. I’ve seen more expensive houses. But, of course, I started thinking about those 100 years. I mean, if you look at the rate of medical advancement from the last 100 years and extrapolate out, you’ve got quite a slope from 1912 to 2012. Heck, if we kept that up, we’d have full adult body generation (well, minus the head) well before 2112. Of course, if we only look at the rate of medical advancement from 2002-2012 and extrapolate that out ten times, we might want to instead consider that $1/day storage option for 500 years.
Having considered the issue of cost, my mind wandered to the other questions in the FAQ and I found myself giggling at the little pockets of “irritated” that bubbled up. Questions like “won’t all my friends and relatives be dead?” get answers like (and I’m paraphrasing here) “Make some new freakin’ friends.” Do you know why they cannot cryogenically freeze your head prior to your legal death? Well, it’s because, given the heretofore inability to reanimate cryogenically preserved people, such an act would technically be homicide despite your signing a waiver (making this post a potential sister post to TVD’s “Libertarianism in a Nutshell“… What? I can’t cryogenically freeze my head prior to my legal death? Statism in a Nutshell.) The heights of “bitchy” achieved in the”Misinformed Questions FAQ” must be read to be believed.
In lieu of a conclusion, I’ll just share this answer that comes from the spiritual FAQs where I surprised myself to find myself charmed by the answer to the question “What happens to the soul?”
Here it is: “Humans have been successfully cryopreserved and revived as embryos. The state of the soul of a cryopreserved person would seem to be one of quiescent waiting.”
(Title explained here.)
I was really hoping you’d have tied this into ACA there JB 😉Report
One of the reasons they get so bitchy about how long it takes to remove someone’s head is that time is a critical factor in the preservation process. Once decay destroys information in the brain it’s gone forever and if too much time passes then you can never be restored short of time travel because there’s not enough of you left.
One of the reasons I haven’t signed up for cryonics is that the nearest facility to me is the Alcor one. It would take days to get my head to their facility, by which time I doubt there’d be much of me left.Report
The immortality problem has been solved. The technology is superb, the techniques delightful in application. We now know that dual-strand DNA cloning has serious problems. My proposed system uses precisely one-half of the donor DNA, unspooled and combined with another such donor’s DNA, thus restoring the full complement of human DNA.
There is no need to freeze your head. Recent research now conclusively demonstrates entire value systems, indeed multiple value systems can be transferred into these immortality vehicles, though this is not always a perfect process. It only takes a few years and soon enough, your immortality vehicle will be on its way into the bright shiny future, capable of reproducing itself. It is a marvellous system, let me tell you. I’ve done it three times, believe it or not. I am told this system of value transfer can even be applied without any DNA transfer at all, thus allowing same-sex couples and even single persons to enjoy the enormous benefits of immortality.
The advantages of this system are numerous. My research has concluded these little immortality vehicles were greatly affectionate and faultlessly duplicated many of my more eccentric mannerisms, to their delight and my consternation. The system works rather better than I expected. In my opinion. everyone should be given a crack at immortality. Raise a child.Report
Very nice.Report
While this is definitely a more practical form of immortality, it certainly isn’t any cheaper. 🙂Report
And there are, regrettably, unsolvable bugs in the value transfer system. On the whole, though, customers report much higher satisfaction rates than with cryogenic revival.Report
Research has isolated these perceived bugs to a dichotomy between what we say and what we do as parents. The goddamn recording mechanisms cannot be shut down, even when you tell them to go to bed.Report
I’d merely note that the two aren’t mutually exclusive by any means.Report
Not to mention the starting part of the process is a lot more fun than multiple medical exams.Report
You can do the starting process and then freeze the embryos.
Win-win.Report
I certainly get the Ted Williams reference.
But I have to admit that absent your question, I would never have thought to ask, “do people still do cryonics?”. Apparently, people do.Report
In the show, shapeshifters from another universe were stealing cryogenically frozen heads.
I found myself wondering “how many of these places are there?”
I mean, if I wanted to steal all of the frozen heads, surely there aren’t *THAT* many places I’d have to rob… then I found out that there are not only tons and tons of biobanks around, they’re called “biobanks”.Report
Well, if my dream comes true and “Demolition Man” turns out to be a documentary from the future…Report
The only purpose of making new friends in the future would be to help me survive the crushing grief for all the ones I had known before.
I’ll pass.Report
Think of the strange facebook requests you’d get then.
‘Hi, I’m the great great great great great great niece of some random person you had algebra class with in grade 9.”Report
“Our history books tell us that the 2012 election is the most important election in the history of the country. Could you tell us what it was like to live at such a momentous time?”Report
I’m looking forward to descriptions of Clinton as a technological genius who presided over the creation of the Internet, and George W. Bush as the man who brought peace to the Middle East after decades of war.Report
We’re all uploading our minds to the League of Ordinary Gentlemen comments section at this very moment.Report
My fellow Earthicans…Report
I’m quite comfortable with “statism” if its essence is “you can’t have your head cryogenically frozen before you die”.
Fascinating post, Jaybird. I like fun random information like this.
I’m still young, so I’m hoping to live to see major medical advances without needing to be frozen.Report
Would it be that different from an Ottawa winter?Report
Ottawa was quite pleasant this winter; we had less than a dozen really cold days. A good coat, and a warm pair of tights under your pants, is all you need to be comfortable. It amused me, because I’m from the west coast, and everyone I know talked up how freezing cold it would be in Ottawa.
Although, supposedly the winter we had was unusually mild for the region.Report
I see this falling under both the “right to die” umbrella as well as the “my body, my choice” umbrella.
Sure, a 24-year old in perfect health who wants it done? Sure, tell him to go walk. A guy in his 60s or 70s who wants another go (when the technology allows)? If we’d allow him to give Doctor K a call, I don’t know why we should forbid him from calling Alcor.Report
Okay so it’s permissible in some but not others…. who gets to decide which is which then? Do we have a panel that votes? Is there an appeal process? What role does legal counsel play? Should quality of life before freezing play into the equation and how much should potential quality of life post freezing factor in?
If it’s okay for the “rule makers” to let a 70 year old with a failing heart do it ~by choice~, then the principles have to allow for a 24 year old in perfect health to also make that choice. Otherwise we’re saying that 24 year olds can’t make choices for themselves….Report
Well, to be honest, I’d read a 24 year old’s desire for something like this as irrational to the point of indicative of mental illness.
Now, if he was 700 pounds and said that he wanted it done at some point in the future where he could start over? Eh. I suppose I could see that. If he had a spectacularly degenerative disease? Eh. I suppose I could see that. (Freeze Hawking!)
If we could rule out mental illness on the part of the 24 year old? Sure, why not? For the most part, however, I’d immediately suspect that something was wrong.
Or, I suppose, a particularly bad breakup.Report
Isn’t this basically the plot of The Time Machine?Report
Or The Door Into Summer.Report
And lord knows the best indication of sanity is NOT wanting to freeze your 24-year-old head…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1G6W863ppUReport
I wouldn’t use “best” but, gotta say, it’s a good one.Report
And thus the cyclical logic is complete!
24-year-old: I want to freeze my head.
Jaybird: You can’t. We don’t let crazy people make such decisions.
24: What makes you think I’m crazy?
JB: You want to freeze your goddamn head, for cryin’ out loud!
24: How can I prove to you I’m not crazy?
JB: Stop trying to freeze your head.
24: Hm.Report
“That’s some catch, JB.”
“It’s the best there is.”Report
Nice.Report
+1
Well played.
(also… good book)Report
Allow me to reframe slightly.
Cryogenics, at this point, is a bet. This bet is far from being a sure thing. Heck, at this point, I think it’s charitable to call it a long shot.
For the average, in perfect health, 24-year old, whether they’d see 34 is pretty close to a sure thing. Barring accidents, fluke diseases, and crime, I don’t think that it’s outlandish to say that the kid is going to see 34. There isn’t *THAT* much difference between those odds and the odds that the kid will see 44. Once you start taking 54 into consideration, the needle starts wobbling. 64? 74? 84? There’s a point at which the “long shot” of going from 5’8″ to 4’10” has a better return than staying 5’8″.
24 is such a bad bet, with such a high downside and such a low upside, the willingness to make it indicates some disconnect.
I oppose suicide for 24 year olds but hem and haw about 84 year olds making that choice. There’s a similar dynamic at work here… though, of course, change in the downside/upside ration will also change the dynamic.Report
First, I will say I was a bit confused. I didn’t realize we were talking about people ending it voluntarily at a given age in order to be frozen. I presumed you meant that the freezing process had to begin before the person was “officially” dead and that we were talking about people whose death was imminent and who might opt to be frozen before it was actually realized. So, I would be okay with a 24-year-old checking the “Freeze my head” box on his license application, so that in the event he gets into a car accident and is about to die but there is the possibility of freezing him, he is opting to take it.
Second, I was also being a bit tongue in cheek.
Third, I’m still not sure I agree that suicide is different at 24 versus 74. I’m not sure I disagree either thought. I tend not to think about suicide because it is a pretty squishy topic and I have been fortunate enough to have no first hand experience with it that has forced me to think about it.Report
I’m 100% cool with signing up with Alcor for the “in case of emergency, remove head” policy. It’s the walking up to the counter and telling the receptionist “get your bonesaw, I’d like to press fast-forward” that I have a problem with.Report
I hear ya. Especially because of all the legal implications. Suppose it was a guy who just murdered his wife but hadn’t yet become an official suspect. Could he be “extradited” from the deep freeze?
On the flip side, if you are someone for whom the current time period is less than ideal and have reasonable hope that things will be better for you in the future, pushing “fast forward” might be the sanest course of action. Suppose this technology existed 200 years ago. Would you tell the fugitive slave with hopes that 100 years from now things will be better than he’s just going to have to wait and hope like the rest of ’em?
Shit makes your head spin.Report
“in case of emergency, remove head”
best sentence ever!Report
Yea, I don’t really get the logic in allowing some but not others. At least from a legal perspective. Alcor could certainly refuse to perform the process, just as a doctor could refuse to perform an elective heart transplant on a completely healthy patient. But I’m not sure why the law should differentiate.Report
And if someone who can’t afford Alcor goes to HacksawsAndPicnicCoolersRUs, who are we to say no?Report
That which is not forbidden is compulsory!Report
They haven’t even built the clock of the long now yet, what makes anyone think something as complex as a cryogenics container is going to last? Might as well save your money and go with the hacksawsandpicniccoolersru’s company.
Or conversely, the good folks at Alcor actually DO succeed and even find the perfect OS to run the system (turns out to be a variant of a Nintendo Gamecube, that that’s a digression). No the truly horrible outcome is that you are brought back to life, perfectly healthy, fully aware with all your memories intact only to find that the future society worships 1980’s disco. Oh the horrors.Report
Dude. Disco is awesome.Report
“Disco is NOT dead! Disco is LIFE!” — Tony P.Report
Wait, really? I’d say that people should absolutely be allowed to do this. It’s their body, after all.Report
On their heads be it.Report
+1.Report
After all, it’s not our ass that’s on the line.Report
Up until the point where we successfully unfreeze a person who has been cryogenically frozen in such a way that they are physically and mentally intact, proving that the technology actually works, it is equivalent to suicide – and, if someone else does it to you (as is necessary), equivalent to homicide. I’m uncomfortable enough with the idea of euthanasia for the very ill; healthy people being frozen as a gamble in hopes of seeing what the future will hold is far more disturbing. It treats life cavalierly.
There’s no clear gain for anyone, based on all that we know, at this point any person who engages in it is killing themselves, so I don’t have any problem whatsoever with it being illegal. It really doesn’t strike me as a serious violation of personal integrity rights. If, in the future, we can be sure that this works, then the issue will change.Report
One of my buds pointed out “why would you want to do this? You wouldn’t qualify for any jobs in 2112.”
While I don’t *KNOW* that this is necessarily true, it’s an excellent point which leads me to how there are cultural things to take into consideration.
Assuming that you’re more or less pretty centrist, I’d say that you’d wake up being the most conservative person on the planet when you open your eyes again. If you’re one of the most progressive people on the planet right now, I’d just ask you to look at the #1 issues of Progressives in 1912 and imagine someone waking up and arguing for those points today… the centrist would be the reactionary and the progressive would be… I don’t even know what they’d be. There would be a lot of catching up for them to do, at the very least.
And, of course, at the end of the day, goodness only knows what jobs would be available and would match the skillset of the person in question. (Again, imagine plucking a person from 1912. At which of today’s jobs are they most likely to excel?)Report
You may not be qualified for any jobs, but if you’re invested well, you may not need to work at all in the future, which is about all that makes the idea remotely attractive.Report
“I wake up and I’m a billionaire? Hot dog! I’m going to buy a candy bar!”
“That will be $72,599.”Report
The Forever War nailed this concern pretty well.Report
This makes me think of Louis CK’s time travel rant… Black people never want to go back in time… “Nothing before ‘Thriller’!” White people can go back in time to anywhere… but lord helps them if they go forward…
(I REALLY hope someone somehow insists I’m playing the racecard here…)Report
Hmm… give us some time. We’ll try.Report
It’s also possible that by 2112 we’ve instituted a universal basic income, and finally seen the end of work.Report
“And the North American Union is on a sound fiscal basis, with no governmental debt.”
“Geez, in my time, the debt was 14 trillion and getting bigger all the time. Where did you find the money to pay it off?”
“Oh, a bit here, a bit there. Just takes discipline.”
“Well, I’m impressed. Anyway, what’s the balance in my account?”
“Funny thing about that.”Report
It isn’t work. It’s task-oriented personal actualization activity. It’s been proven by peer-reviewed and scientificated exegation that lack of personal actualization results in overabundance of ennui, leading to poor moral health and the resultant overconsumption of physical resources. The optimal balance has been shown to obtain when every Earth Citizen spend at least forty percent of their available energetics on personal actualization, and it’s easier to reach that goal when the activities are task-oriented.
So, anyway, here’s your shovel. Get diggin’.Report
Don’t get your hopes up. It’s fascinating to read the late-1800s/early-1900s utopias and see how perfect they hoped the world could be in 100 years. In general, they overestimated technological progress in some areas, underestimated it in others (no idea of anything like the Internet), and greatly overestimated social progress.
If we were going to eliminate the employment = income equation, we would have gotten a start on it already. There’s something ridiculous to me about a world in which we can, thanks to technology, mass-produce basically any good in large enough quantities for it to be universally available, and where one of our greatest problems is unemployment, and yet employment and consumption remain tied together. If we don’t need additional people working to increase the number of goods and services available, why require everyone to have regular employment? When work becomes something you are given (“job creators”) rather than a service which you provide, linking it to merit and income becomes more questionable.
Does having people work as supermarket cashiers rather than implementing universal self-checkout and providing everyone with money anyway really raise the level of overall human happiness?Report
Yup. As I think I’ve said in the past on here, one of my goals as a commie-Dem socialist is to be seen as a crazy right-winger by my grandkids despite having the same political views as today. 🙂Report
“Grandpa, you’ve got to get over your hangups about these underage-human simudroids. They’re a necessary part of expressing our active emotions in a controlled, healthy manner. I mean, it’s not like that’s real blood coming out.”Report
Historian?Report