Slashdot Mirror


Human Hibernation on the Horizon?

Mincemeat.net writes "The BBC is reporting that scientists at University of Washington have successfully induced a state of extreme hibernation in mice. The mice suffered no ill effects. Naturally, testing in larger animals will ensue. Humans wouldn't necessarily appreciate the smell of hydrogen sulfide while being placed into suspended animation. However, the applications are numerous if the usage of similar techniques can be applied to us. Cancer treatment, delaying death from injuries, interplanetary expeditions top the lists of possibilities. While it's not a quick freeze, maybe Fry will be able to meet Bender after all."

511 comments

  1. Experience is King by A+Boy+and+His+Blob · · Score: 5, Funny
    a chamber filled with air laced with 80 parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) - the malodorous gas that give rotten eggs their stink
    ...
    its possible use in space travel
    Hey NASA, I'm your man, I've been enduring riding the elevator with my gaseous coworkers for YEARS.
    1. Re:Experience is King by CleverNickedName · · Score: 1

      A funny FP?

      Mod that rare beast up, boys.

      --


      Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
    2. Re:Experience is King by Dagrush · · Score: 1, Funny

      Doesn't that make you a horrible candidate, because you're immune?

    3. Re:Experience is King by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Being deaf to the colon trumpet is not enough.
      The gases used here sound louder.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Experience is King by gokulpod · · Score: 5, Funny

      No wonder your boss catches you sleeping all the time.

      --
      My mom never taught me to sign.
    5. Re:Experience is King by wernercd · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded this 'troll' is a moron. I found it particularly funny. +1 funny

    6. Re:Experience is King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll

    7. Re:Experience is King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats okay. Meta-moderating it unfair right now!!! :)

  2. Well Water by teh+merry+reaper · · Score: 5, Informative

    Funny, Hydrogen Sulfide is a common enough contaminant in ground (well) water systems as well as a byproduct of oil refineries. It deprives the brain of oxygen and causes what IIRC is called "blowdown" or "knockdown" in oil refineries when people momentarily pass out.

    --
    6x9=42
    1. Re:Well Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      its also what makes farts stink

    2. Re:Well Water by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to one of the articles I read, the researcher actually got the idea to use that molecule from a documentary about caving.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:Well Water by October_30th · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I've done research using Hydrogen Sulfide and it's nasty stuff. It's corrosive, explosive, poisonous and a chemical asphyxiant.

      Its corrosive property is particularly nasty. Here's what happens to a copper seal in a H2S gas line over time. The inner part of the seal has been in contact with H2S and as you can see it's just flaking away. Aluminum, plastic or synthetic rubber seals don't do much better and a leak in a H2S line will definitely ruin your day...

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:Well Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      so, if i can fart enough in a closed room i will enter a state of suspended animation?

    5. Re:Well Water by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Funny

      and a leak in a H2S line will definitely ruin your day...

      Not to mention your appetite..

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    6. Re:Well Water by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Well, yes.

      After an H2S leak, you won't be feeling hungry ever again. ;)

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    7. Re:Well Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Well Water by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      and as you can see it's just flaking away.

      Yes, as I can see you have a very nice ImageShack bandwidth warning frog.

    9. Re:Well Water by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      That image's been shut down due to bandwith overuse - repost, please? In fact, use coral cache with your next link.

  3. Mm.... by thegamerformelyknown · · Score: 0

    MMMMMmmmmmm..... Human Popsicles! Just makes you want to get into one of those!

    1. Re:Mm.... by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      More like human Internet Chairs.

      Woooeee.

  4. I don't understand the Fry comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Are you talking about the store that's the Disney World for geeks? If so, then yes hibernation would be a great thing to have when shopping there. When you get in line, you could hibernate then when you're ready to check-out, they could revive you. That would make checking-out there much more pleasant!

    1. Re:I don't understand the Fry comment? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1, Informative

      Fry and Bender are the names of characters from Futurama; Fry is a 20th century human who winds up being frozen and wakes up in the future. Bender is an alcoholic robot.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    2. Re:I don't understand the Fry comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bender isn't really an alchoholic in the sense a human would be. In Futurama alcohol is fuel for robots, and they consider not drinking to be like alcoholism.

    3. Re:I don't understand the Fry comment? by ecc962 · · Score: 0

      Fry will get to meet Bender, and I might have a chance with Amy Wong. Lead me to the hibernation unit.

    4. Re:I don't understand the Fry comment? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fry: "You're a robot, why do you need to drink?"
      Bender: "I don't need to drink! I can quit any time I want!"

      It's not as funny without the voices.. ;)

    5. Re:I don't understand the Fry comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, she is pretty hot for a martian.

    6. Re:I don't understand the Fry comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bender is more of a gluton -- as shown in "Anthology of Interest ][".

    7. Re:I don't understand the Fry comment? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but she comes from the wong side of the planet.

  5. I can't wait for... by Palal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...an instant coast-to-coast flight.... "Fifth Element" is coming true. :)

    --
    -Palal
    1. Re:I can't wait for... by K2Extreme · · Score: 5, Funny
      an instant coast-to-coast flight

      I live in Switzerland, you insensitive clod !

    2. Re:I can't wait for... by rufo · · Score: 1

      But where are the hot flight attendants with the skimpy outfits?

      I see no such thing. ;-)

      --
      My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    3. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Plus, if your plane happens to crash (and burn), you'll never know! Maybe I won't be afraid of flying anymore..

    4. Re:I can't wait for... by timster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you even been flying since 1970? All the flight attendants now are the SAME ONES that the airlines hired back in the day. They formed unions and made careers out of it.

      In other words, they are all like 50 years old now.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    5. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the Fifth Element?

      I imagine that is what GP meant.

    6. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the Fifth Element?

      I imagine that is what GP meant.


      Well given the year that the movie was set in, it was probably just near the beginning of a new generational cycle.;)

    7. Re:I can't wait for... by AgentSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      I live in Switzerland, you insensitive clod !

      I live in clod you insensitive Switzerland!

    8. Re:I can't wait for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...an instant coast-to-coast flight


      Actually, this is probably a moderately bad idea. "Lets's shut down this person and expose them to higher than normal radiation for several hours"

      Would this be better or worse than exposing them to higher than normal radiation for several hours while they try to dull their senses with overpriced alcohol?

    9. Re:I can't wait for... by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      ...an instant coast-to-coast flight.... "Fifth Element" is coming true.

      Er, the flight in The Fifth Element that involved hibernation wasn't just trans-continental, it was interstellar.

  6. Finally, a little piece and quiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake me up when we get those flying cars.

    1. Re:Finally, a little piece and quiet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey wisenheimer, I'm taking my flying car to the space elevator tomorrow to head up for my stint at the George W. Bush Moon Base where I'll be hibernated for my upcoming Mars mission.

  7. Do they want human volunteers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they want human volunteers? I know that sounds kind of morbid, but to be honest, I'd consider it...

  8. This is news? by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hibernation has been taking place in people since geeks took to their parents' basements.

    1. Re:This is news? by Skrybe · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you've got the wrong word there, the one you're looking for is not "hibernation", it's "masturbation".

    2. Re:This is news? by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I could masturbate as long as bears hibernate, I definitely wouldn't be in my parents' basement.

    3. Re:This is news? by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny
      If I could masturbate as long as bears hibernate, I definitely wouldn't be in my parents' basement


      Very true. Most likely you would be in the emergency room, awaiting a skin graft.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On an annualized basis, you probably do spend more time masturbating than a bear hibernates, 0x461FAB0BD7D2. On a side note, are you related to 0x461FAB0BD7D7?

    5. Re:This is news? by aixou · · Score: 1

      The word he was looking for, he couldn't say because there were preschool toys present.
      Bastard.

      Speaking of Toy Story, maybe this is a little like the way the Toys in the movie are able to go into their extended periods of rest while in the presence of humans.

    6. Re:This is news? by Efinel · · Score: 1

      Been there, Done that :
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064425/

    7. Re:This is news? by mboverload · · Score: 1

      Although pain is greatly reduced during sexual arousal anything as serious as needing a skin graft is going to hurt. Bad.

    8. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      and blind

    9. Re:This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and a bad case of acne and hairy palms.

    10. Re:This is news? by StarRoamer · · Score: 1
      Are you saying that humans exude something (flatulence?) that makes toys hibernate?

      What about the scene at the end where the toys intimidate Sid?

    11. Re:This is news? by Excen · · Score: 1

      If you could, the porn industry would be very interested in your services. . .

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
  9. That's nice. by natrius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now that they've got that done, they can work on getting people to function on less sleep. I want to be a microsleeper.

    1. Re:That's nice. by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 1

      Less sleep? They fixed that with the invention of coffee brewing machines and Starbucks.

    2. Re:That's nice. by varghan · · Score: 5, Funny

      From what I've heard, the use of certain acetylated opium derivatives induce a state where one needs less sleep (2hrs/day).
      The use has quite some side effects, one of them, in my city at least, seems to be a strong preference for car hifi equipment.

    3. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I managed to go with 1 hour of sleep a day, awake for 5.75 hours, sleep .25, awake 5.75, sleep .25 for several months before I had a change in work schedule and had to stop: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/15/103358/720

    4. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google modafonil

    5. Re:That's nice. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      They already have that, it is available in many forms.

      Cofee, Tea, Surge, Mt. Dew, Jolt, and many other fine products that are available at Think Geek

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:That's nice. by SlightlyMadman · · Score: 1

      Have you looked into polyphasic sleeping? Buckminster Fuller did it, so it's possible. In my own experiments I didn't have much luck with it, but I think it requires a bit more discipline than I've got as well as absinence from things like caffeine and alcohol.

      --

      Money I owe, money-iy-ay
    7. Re:That's nice. by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Acetylated opium derivatives causing sleeplessness? Hardly. Perhaps you're thinking of substituted phenylethylamines, or south american plant alkaloid extracts.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    8. Re:That's nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean crystal meth?

    9. Re:That's nice. by DGregory · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that's not a natural state, I'd hate to have a baby that needed little sleep while I of course need my 8 hours. My 6 month old doesn't give me enough sleep as it is, I'd probably keel over if he was a microsleeper.

    10. Re:That's nice. by DGregory · · Score: 1

      I discovered, through having kids, that you need 4 hours of uninterrupted sleep in order to be able to function. I'm going on 6 months now on reduced sleep. I tend to nap when I get a chance, I fall asleep if I get the least bit relaxed. But I still manage to wake up numerous times every night because the damn kid won't sleep. (maybe he's a polyphasic sleeper, he was up for 2 hours last night, at around 3 am, wanting to play).

    11. Re:That's nice. by SlightlyMadman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I discovered, through having kids, that you need 4 hours of uninterrupted sleep in order to be able to function.

      While this is true for most people, the polyphasic technique works around it. Basically, the only part of that sleep that's neccesary for survival is the REM cycles. When your brain has adjusted to the polyphasic sleep method, you go directly into REM, skipping those other uneccesary deep sleep phases. This has the drawback of losing things like the ability to build new muscle mass, but for a guy like me or Bucky Fuller that's not really an issue.

      But I still manage to wake up numerous times every night because the damn kid won't sleep. (maybe he's a polyphasic sleeper, he was up for 2 hours last night, at around 3 am, wanting to play).

      Actually, this is pretty close to the truth. Most of the research done on polyphasic sleeping has built on studying infants and cats. The 8-hour nocturnal sleep phase is basically a learned behavior we developed to keep ourselves safe in a cave when we can't see a damn thing so we don't trip over that sabre toothed tiger. Infants don't bother because they haven't learned it yet. Cats don't bother because they're descended from that sabre toothed tiger.

      --

      Money I owe, money-iy-ay
  10. Not necessarily a good thing.... by masterzora · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm up for a little hibernation for space travel, but for medical aid? Aren't we already saving too many people who should be dead and thereby contributing greatly to world problems like overcrowding and world hunger and fun stuff?

    --
    Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    1. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Overcrowding and world hunger stem from people screwing the hell out of each other too much and having more babies they simply can't take care of and shouldn't be having in the first place.

      Those that are alive currently take an infinite amount more of priority over those who are non-existant. It sounds like a poor attitude but it is correct.

      If humans stopped producing more children and the starving in Africa, India and China died off then there wouldn't be as much problems. There would be no reason that those alive couldn't live long with a fountain of youth as we expand into the universe.

    2. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by tloh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The solution to world problems like overcrowding and world hunger is not to let disease and ill health cut population down to size. That is simply barbaric in this day and age. As humanity progress, I believe we should seek social solutions for social problems rather than let nature prune our civilization as if we were a herd of hoofed herbavores. Otherwise, the whole lot of slashdot readers would have become extinct through vicious sexual selection preasures.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    3. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by masterzora · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our options really are to cut down the population or to increase the area we live in (unless we /want/ to live with 300 people per square nanometer). So, either let people die or explore space and colonize other planets and/or moons. I'm just pointing out which one we're more capable of.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    4. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      At this point, our civilization has a very strongly negative evolutionary direction.

      The smart people tend to have one child per couple if any at all.
      The poor, uneducated, often retarded, tend to produce ten or more per family.

      End result...?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by n0nsensical · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Overpopulation is nonexistent as a problem in the developed world. If anything, the problem is going to be UNDERpopulation, especially for Europe with its ever-declining birthrates and strict immigration policies. If hibernation ever becomes possible there's not going to be a whole lot of people going into it in the poorest developing areas.

    6. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by evanbd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, we stop reproducing so much. It's really not that hard, and what's even better is that wealth appears to result in people having fewer children -- so as standards of living improve, population growth will slow. Europe already has negative population growth once you subtract out imigration, and the US is on its way.

    7. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earth's not done yet. While overcrowding may be a problem in some areas, the average population density of the earth is 40 people per square kilometer. As for food, yield from farming will continue to increase as developing nations adopt modern agriculture. Furthermore, new refinements in agriculture will be introduced which will increase the food supply even more.

      The reason that Malthus's predictions were wrong was because he failed to take this into account. The starvation in the world today results from political problems. We are not lacking in capacity (however, increasing capacity further may reduce the impact of some of these political problems).

      Sure there is an upper limit on how many people the earth can support, but it's not a ticking time bomb. This is something that we can deal with over the course of the next several thousand years.

    8. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you do a little math, you'll see that neither killing people nor exploring space are solutions to overpopulation.

      The population is just growing too quickly. We get 75 million new people a year.

      Let's start with the easy one -- space colonies. You can start exploring planets all you want, but unless you can figure out a way to ship off more than 75 million people a year, the population is still going to increase on Earth. Think about how many resources and man-hours are required to get seven people into LEO -- we couldn't reduce population by shipping people into space even if the whole world were united behind the project.

      Next, let's talk war. Suppose you started a war that lasted a week and killed 1,000,000 people. That's a lot of people in a short amount of time -- it would be horrific. At the end of that week, you'd still have 430,000 more people than you started with! You could drag that war on for ten years, kill half a billion people (more than any war in history), and you'd still be way behind. Sure, you could pull out the nukes, but then you'd be reducing livable space and making a mess for the survivors.

      The other thing you have to keep in mind is that many of the people saved by modern medicine are already past child bearing. The sort of people who could afford hiberation treatment would be in wealthy countries where the birth rate is low, anyway.

      Everyone dies eventually, so killing a few adults off early doesn't change much in the long term balance sheet. The only practical way to do so is to alter the birth rate.

      And one of the best ways to lower birth rates is to raise living standards and give people access to modern medical care (including contraceptives). When the mortality rate drops to some reasonable level and half the family isn't sick from malaria, you don't need to overproduce children just to make sure you'll have enough healthy members in the family.

      It's also a lot more efficient for people to have a few healthy children than it is for them to spend resources raising a lot children only to have some large portion of them struck down by one of the four horsemen.

    9. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by mboverload · · Score: 1

      Natural selection is one of the wonders of nature. I don't think you should discount it so easily.

    10. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      And one of the best ways to lower birth rates is to raise living standards and give people access to modern medical care (including contraceptives).

      MOD PARENT UP !

      Very insightful, very much away from the common rubbish like "overcrowding is a local issue, will be solved by expanding, is the problem of "under-educated" (??) people..."
      One detail though: reducing birth rate can be achieve by giving people access to education: primary and further. Notice: once education is there, people expectations for their children goes higher. The price for the expectation goes higher, therefore the prices of raising a child ...: conclusion you do less children because you want to educate them higher. Note how the mean of education is freedom empowering, respectful, non dictatorial, culturally respectful (if not done as a colonisation!) ... Wouldn't it be the best way ? It's a goodness-cycle.

      Note: earth could probably bear 20 Billion people. BUT not like me: fat bold western consumer, sure about my right to use whatever I want.

      Ciao.
      Z.

    11. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Overpopulation is nonexistent as a problem in the developed world.

      A combination of overuse of resources and lack of consideration for the waste productions defintely is an issue, as is loss of habitat for animals. The solutions are either less use of resource per person, less production of waste products per human, better city planning, less people, or some combination of all these.

    12. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's really not that hard, and what's even better is that wealth appears to result in people having fewer children


      This is true only when the number of children produced is at least at the level of replacement. The problem many industrialised nations are facing is that populations won't be replaced and we will end up with less workers supporting more elderly unless the elderly either work longer, save more (which might mean lower GDP growth in the short term due to lower consumer spending), or we have a Logan's run-type culling system.

    13. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And one of the best ways to lower birth rates is to raise living standards


      Only if the increase in living standards also comes with lower resource usage and/or lower waste production. Otherwise you end up transforming 100 people from a poor nation that use 100 unit of resource but will be 200 people using 200 units of resource in 10 years time into 100 people who use 500+ units of resource in 10 years time. Yes, you don't have any more people, but you are potentially in a worse position.


      (This effect can be seen in China - birth rates have dropped but the effect of people wanting to drive cars rather than cycle may have some adverse effects on oil prices for a long time to come).

    14. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Someone may be uneducated or poor but this does not necessarily mean that their genetic stock is any worse. Some are of above average intelligence but have simply not had the combination of luck, opportunity or determination to move from the lower social strata to higher ones. Social mobility (defined in terms of financial outcome) in many Western nations (e.g. Britain, USA) is actually rather low and falling.

      The truly mentally retarded are often in medicalised or institutionalised situations and have few offspring.

      Is there a comprehensive study showing that those who are actually lacking in intelligence rather than education (and also those who are lacking in intelligence but well educated) breed more often?

    15. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the places that are becoming (or already are) overcrowded, it's generally in locations where food is scarce and life expectancy is lower.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    16. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone may be uneducated or poor but this does not necessarily mean that their genetic stock is any worse.
      Of course, there are many smart poor people, and there are many who are dumb but had the luck of being born in a higher social class. What I mean is, there is a significant correlation between intelligence+education and the social stratum.
      And, the amount of offspring is inversely proportional to the social level.

      The truly mentally retarded are often in medicalised or institutionalised situations and have few offspring.
      Only in developed countries and only in better city districts.
      There are villages in central Africa where the average IQ is around 40. It's not only the lack of education, but actual hereditary retardation of whole populations.
      I can also spot similar cases on a lesser scale even in my home town. In this case, it's just my feeling rather than a scientific study, but I doubt those people can be degenerated to such a level purely because of the lack of education.

      And these are the kind of people who tend to breed families of 10+ kids.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    17. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aren't we already saving too many people who should be dead and thereby contributing greatly to world problems like overcrowding and world hunger and fun stuff?

      No, the problems of world overcrowding and hunger are not problems of supply, they're problems of distribution. The world's food supply is perfectly adequate to feed everyone, and global food production has kept up with population growth. As for overcrowding, the entire population of the world could be housed in an area the size of Texas. This would give every family (or group) of four 5000 square feet of living space.

      The problems of world hunger and overcrowding are not problems inherent with having too many people.

    18. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      It's not the number of people the we gain every year, it's the location of said population growth. If we spread folks out some, see if the environment can support them naturally (No food shipped in) and go from there.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    19. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This effect can be seen in China - birth rates have dropped but the effect of people wanting to drive cars rather than cycle may have some adverse effects on oil prices for a long time to come
      That can probably be attributed to two factors: a bombardment of advertising encouraging private motor vehicles as status objects and the government deciding top-down that car manufacture and sales will be part of the new economy

      However, the general point is correct, the increase of standard of living must come with lower resource usage. That goes especially for those currently burning through the majority of the resources.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    20. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aren't we already saving too many people who should be dead and thereby contributing greatly to world problems like overcrowding and world hunger and fun stuff?

      Fair enough: drop dead.

      You do not want to? Hm, funny. Neither do I.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    21. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by milosoftware · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...one of the four horsemen...

      They drive motorcycles nowadays, and Plague has been replaced by Pollution.

      --
      Musicians don't die. They just decompose.
    22. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... Let's see the impact to the World GDP Initially for shipping 75M people to space colonies (assuming we have some and that they can take 75M people.. BIG assumption...)

      75M People @ Say an average 160 lbs per person times $10000/lb US (launch costs) = $120 Trillion that must be spent to get those 75M people off this rock... There would also be lost tax revenue, and lost wages initially. Who knows if the wage income will come back as "cheap" imports...

      Looks like a no go from an economic standpoint (even if launch costs come down by two orders of magnitude the cost is initially $1.2 Trillion US - a whole LOT of scratch...)

    23. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Mant · · Score: 1

      The moment you start using medicine you are basically giving up on natural selection. It is pretty much impossible to have along with a civilised society.

    24. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy the over-population idea. If I remember correctly, I heard that the entire world population could fit inside Rhode Island (of course, all standing up I suppose. How much land is there that is unused for the human population? How much land is being used right now in inappropriate and wasteful ways?

      How about we live less luxurious and live in smaller houses? I mean, if we only wanna have 1 or 2 kids, who needs a huge house? And if you absolutely need to have a huge house while the kids are at home, what about moving into a smaller place after they leave? In fact, why do they need to leave? What inherent advantages are there in leaving? In many cultures parents, children, and grand children live in the same home. There are many advantages to this, and the only disadvantages I can see are, if you don't get along with somebody then it could get nasty, and a loss of some of your freedom to do whatever you want (have sex in the kitchen, paint the whole house pink, rearrange furniture, etc.).

      Why don't we take down all of the sports stadiums and replace them with living space? I guess this wouldn't go over so well with all the educated, modern families that are used to such high standards of living anyway.

      Give me a good reason why we need to limit world population growth. So far, the only thing I've heard is, "We have too many people!" yet no good reason why this is even remotely a problem.

    25. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      one of the best ways to lower birth rates is to raise living standards

      The solar system has millions of times the resources we have on Earth. Don't you think that gaining access to all that might do a little bit to raise living standards?

    26. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And one of the best ways to lower birth rates is to raise living standards and give people access to modern medical care (including contraceptives). When the mortality rate drops to some reasonable level and half the family isn't sick from malaria, you don't need to overproduce children just to make sure you'll have enough healthy members in the family.

      I agree, although for different reasons. Concraception is not the reason that most postindustrial countries have low birth rates. For the most part, it is just more economically efficent to have many children in poor countries and less efficent to have children at all in wealthy countries.

      If you live on a subsistence level, every child is another pair or hands to work the farm, or help out however. In the US, Europe, etc, a child is a drain on your resources for 18+ years. So you have fewer.

      We do need to give access to concraceptives to deal with overpoplation, but if we just raise the standard of living, contraceptives, and economical pressure to use them, will follow.

    27. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Draknor · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree with parent poster - the problem is one of distribution, not supply. And for those who don't believe the claim the entire world population would fit in Texas:

      Size of Texas: 261,914 sq miles (land) = 7.30174326 × 10^12 square feet

      Population of the world: 6,515,511,450 people

      Area / people = 1120.67077 sq ft/person

      Family/group of 4 = 4482.7 sq ft

      Incredible, isn't it?

    28. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Dude, birth rate is going down (which is good / sustainable) but there haven't been strict immigration policies for a long time. So the population has still been climbing. A case in point is Malmö which is in southern Sweden, yet the largest ethnic minority there is Swedes. Similar things can be said of other regions, Denmark, Canada, too.

      It's a mixed group. Some are people that anyone would be happy or, in some cases, proud to live next to or work with. Others are, quite literally, war criminals. There are no major ethnic riots, that's reserved for football, but there are large street fights from time to time involving dozens on each side. It's not something that the countries like to advertise, but ignoring the problem isn't going to help it any. You can read about it in the local languages in some countries, though it's forbidden in some areas to mention the ethnicity of the groups involved.

      Hibernation can't have a direct benefit on keeping the population down. As everyone mentiones, space travel would be a good application for hibernation, but it's not possible to export people faster than they are being produced today with the focus on quantity over quality. Travel by ship in hibernation on the planet is only a theoretical possibility, but all habitable areas are colonized and air travel would get them there anyway. I can't think anyone would want to end up lost, like many parcels and peices of luggage do, or risk ending up as an organ bank.

      I dunno, maybe hibernation will bring a new angle on time-share condos?

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    29. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a lot more efficient for people to have a few healthy children than it is for them to spend resources raising a lot children only to have some large portion of them struck down by one of the four horsemen.

      Yes. Please have someone explain this to the illegal immigrants in southern California.

    30. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by benzapp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right. The solution to overpopulation is simple: restrict who can and does give birth.

      Licenses should be issued only to people of sufficient quality. For those with highly defective traits, sterilization is the best method.

      Ultimately, if half of all adults are sterilized, the reproduction rate will be immediately cut in half. If we further restrict reproduction in less desirable persons, and mandate abortions when the deviate from national policies we can take care of the rest.

      Its entirely possible that we can have 1/3 of the current birthrate, and insure that all who are born are of superior genetic stock. In a few generations, when the inferior die out after being unable to reproduce, we will have a beautiful, healthy species. And of course, we won't have had to rely on murder or forced emigration.

      The rapid reproduction of the inferior is purely a temporary problem that has resulted from the rapid rise of technology (ie medicine, advanced farming techniques). This is a problem that can be just easily solved using advanced technology.

      This is the rational way to avoid the "four horsemen" as you put it.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    31. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a utilitarian, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your news letter. As a /.er I would like to say, "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN", or perhaps make reference to Gundam Seed.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    32. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny
      Masterzora's world looks something like this:
      MORTICIAN: Bring out your dead!
      Bring out your dead!
      [clang] Bring out your dead!
      [clang] Bring out your dead!
      [clang] Bring out your dead!
      [clang] Bring out your dead!
      CUSTOMER: Here's one -- nine pence.
      DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!
      MORTICIAN: What?
      CUSTOMER: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
      DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!
      MORTICIAN: Here -- he says he's not dead!
      CUSTOMER: Yes, he is.
      DEAD PERSON: I'm not!
      MORTICIAN: He isn't.
      CUSTOMER: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
      DEAD PERSON: I'm getting better!
      CUSTOMER: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
      MORTICIAN: Oh, I can't take him like that -- it's against
      regulations.
      DEAD PERSON: I don't want to go in the cart!
      CUSTOMER: Oh, don't be such a baby.
      MORTICIAN: I can't take him...
      DEAD PERSON: I feel fine!
      CUSTOMER: Oh, do us a favor...
      MORTICIAN: I can't.
      CUSTOMER: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He
      won't be long.
      MORTICIAN: Naaah, I got to go on to Robinson's -- they've lost
      nine today.
      CUSTOMER: Well, when is your next round?
      MORTICIAN: Thursday.
      DEAD PERSON: I think I'll go for a walk.
      CUSTOMER: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there
      something you can do?
      DEAD PERSON: I feel happy... I feel happy.
      [whop]
      CUSTOMER: Ah, thanks very much.
      MORTICIAN: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
      CUSTOMER: Right.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    33. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by i2878 · · Score: 1

      The next logical step is eliminating 'natural' birth altogether. We separate sex (recreation) and childbearing (necessary for the species) by way of cloning (or some such method) then set up a caste system by which our new society can operate smoothly.

      It's not a new idea. Read 'Brave New World' by Auldus Huxley - circa ~1932....

      --
      legal. fun. profitable. pick two.
    34. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by operagost · · Score: 1
      False dilemma. Another option, just one example, is reducing birthrate. But that assumes we are experiencing overpopulation in the first place, which is highly debatable. We have huge areas uninhabited by humans (fortunately) and are able to grow more food on less soil every year. People are starving because of greed: greed for power and greed for money.

      Apparently, there's a few members of the "culture of death" on here today because they keep modding up your "insights".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    35. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That can probably be attributed to two factors: a bombardment of advertising encouraging private motor vehicles as status objects and the government deciding top-down that car manufacture and sales will be part of the new economy

      ...and you think that's an aberration, that with "higher standards of living" come "advertising bombardments" for products we don't really need? Funny, I thought having more products you don't need is what most people meant when they said "higher standard of living".

    36. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "If we further restrict reproduction in less desirable persons, and mandate abortions when the deviate from national policies we can take care of the rest."

      This was tried once, it's called eugenics. Throw in some race politics (there's still plenty of people out there that believe inbreeding somehow empowers you instead of producing ugly people with big ears and bad teeth), and you've got a perfect recipe for a Fourth Reich.

      May I suggest that, in that light, China's one-child policy looks reasonable?

    37. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by youknowmewell · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      Let's sterilize you first. You have qualities I deem undesirable in the genetic pool. After you are sterilized, I'll think of some more people that I deem to have undesirable traits.

    38. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by ShieldWolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry it just isn't that simple. If it were then why did the U.S. birthrate PLUMET when the pill was introduced?

      Having studied birthrates and the third world I can tell you what some studies have said.

      First of all most Women is poor countries DON'T HAVE FARMS. These isn't little house of the prairie where a bunch of little helpers go out and milk the cows. They live in poverty with very little to provide sustenance. These women have children by the bushels for numerous reasons, but one of the most striking is a concept called numeracy. They don't have it. It is the concept of how many children one has, e.g. only child, 2, 3 then stopping. When you ask a woman is sub-saharran Africa how many children she wants she will reply with something like - "as many as god gives me" or "I don't know what you mean, as many as will come".

      What most studies find about lowering birthrates in the thirdworld is an insanely simple answer: empower women. When women become empowered they begin to feel they can control their environment and by extension their reproduction.

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    39. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by ColGraff · · Score: 2

      I'm curious - do you see any potential objections to this idea? Any at all? How about potential abuses?

      Were I less well-caffeinated, I'd probably create an instance of Godwin's Law right now. As it is, I'll just point and laugh.

      *points and laughs*

      --
      I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    40. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      (sigh)

      I don't know if you've noticed, but people require rather more than surface area to live. Like food, water, materials, and manufacturing facilities to build houses. As such, the whole "world's population could fit in Texas" meme going around is irrelevant at best.

      But even leaving all that aside, we use a lot more space that just what's inside our houses. Notably, we have streets to get between houses and businesses (which also requires space). Even assuming that the world's populace could magic their way to Texas, it wouldn't be a suitable spot for a weekend convention, let alone permament habiation. And let's not forget that many people dislike sprawl on the relatively small scale of Las Vegas. Somehow I don't think a state-wide sprawl would cut it.

      In the end, I may as well claim that the world's population would fit in Rhode Island. It's technically true, but not at all germane to the discussion of overpopulation.

      1045 sq. mi. = 29.13 * 10^9 sq. feet

      29.13 * 10^9 / 6.516 * 10^9 = 4.732 sq. feet/person

    41. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Armageddon will occur and be averted in southern England.

    42. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't mind if I invoke godwins law, do you?

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    43. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by emotionus · · Score: 1

      there will *never* be *complete* cloning of human beings.

    44. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ok...

      More people = more food for Gawd when it arrives.

      Why else to you think it wanted us to go out and reproduce?

      If we are 'sheep/cattle/etc.' following this 'shepherd' what do you think will happen come harvest time?

    45. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moment you start using medicine you are basically giving up on natural selection. It is pretty much impossible to have along with a civilised society.

      I would say natural selection slowly started to loss its influence over humanity long before modern medicine. Starting in the neolithic era, people developed tools, weapons, and social structures that allowed them to increase food production past subsistance levels and defend their settlements from predators. Since then, increasingly the only selective pressures left have been from other humans; either through competetion (sexual, economic, etc...) or direct harmful actions (crime, war, etc...).

      This does not imply that humans can't cooperate to solve problems. Ironically though, our cooperation in the past has work so well we that in many ways we are our own worst enemy.

    46. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by rob_squared · · Score: 0

      I wish I could stick around, but my eyes aren't blue and my hair isn't blond, too bad.

      --
      I don't get it.
    47. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by hab136 · · Score: 1
      there will *never* be *complete* cloning of human beings.

      Why not? And since you are able to look into the future and predict all progress and scientific discovery, can you tell me when I'll finally get my flying car?

    48. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I'm in favor of the idea of practical eugenics, myself, I noticed that you tended to use rather vauge terms (e.g. "inferior", "superior"). makes you sound kind'a like a modern Oppenheimer.

      Some specifics might have been better (e.g. people with congenital defects like diabetes, hemophilia, down-syndrome, &c. don't get to breed unless they have some *really* good traits to offset those flaws, healthy people with high IQs might be encouraged to breed, &c.)... or were you thinking of only giving licenses to e.g. blond haired, blue eyed Arians?

    49. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by emotionus · · Score: 1

      One - Technically its almost impossible. I am not niave enough to assume we will never ever ever have that capability. But really, what is the point in cloning an *entire* human being. It just isn't practical. I fully expect limbs and organs to be cloned but never an entire human being. I would almost bet we will have the technology to just alter the genes of a "natual" baby to get the desired result rather then outright cloning of the "Best of the best" of the human race.

    50. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you do a little math, you'll see that neither killing people nor exploring space are solutions to overpopulation.

      Never ever underestimate man's ability to kill other men.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    51. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by hab136 · · Score: 1
      Technically its almost impossible [...] I am not niave enough to assume we will never ever ever have that capability.

      Almost impossible = not impossible = possible
      So it's possible, and we will have the capability. , the only question is whether we will use that capability. Awesome.

      I agree, cloning is rather retarded, and I doubt there will widespread cloning. But there's always somebody who will think it's a great idea, so I figure there will be at least a few clones, even if it's both difficult and illegal.

    52. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Technically its almost impossible.
      Almost impossible = not impossible = possible.

      Also, you don't give any reason as to why you consider it to be a task of such enormous difficulty. So far all that we know is that it's "almost impossible" because you say so.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    53. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *raises hand*
      Ooh! Ooh! Me! Me! I do!
      *drops dead*

    54. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, give me a big enough wood chipper and I could fit the entire population within the state of Rhode Island.

    55. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by photon317 · · Score: 1


      To elaborate - as an example we can take the existing population density of the state of New York (400 ppl per sq mi in y2k), the existing population density of Iowa (52.4 ppl per sq mi in y2k). These are two extremes - New York is a good example of tightly packed first world citizens, but it relies on a lot of external resources. Iowa is the exact opposite, supplying a lot of those resources to more densly packed areas.

      Average the two population densities for a rough in-between figure, multiply by the world's population - and you arrive at approximately 78 million square miles of space needed to house the world's popluation and provide all their needs, versus a quarter million square miles in TX.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    56. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by emotionus · · Score: 1

      Typically on slashdot you do not need proof. But fine. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s830381 .htm http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/apr/03041101.html http://dms.dartmouth.edu/news/2003_h1/10apr2003_cl oning.shtml I did find one article of some new korean method that was used to clone primate stem cells, but I couldn't find any reference to an actual journal or anything. http://newsbureau.upmc.com/Magee/SchattenPrimateCl oneStudy2004.htm here's a quote though '"We've had better development to the blastocyst stage in laboratory culture, which may help us to achieve cloned primate embryonic stem cells," said Dr. Simerly. "There are primate embryonic stem cells now, but no cloned primate embryonic stem cells."' I didn't look to hard, but I couldn't find any mention of this on the school's webpage.

    57. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by emotionus · · Score: 1

      god i'm a noob.

    58. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who decides what people are of sufficient quality?

      this idea is a very logical one, if only there was a way to determine what qualities were without a doubt bad for society. unfortuantely (and hopefully) society will never progress to a point where someone does make those decisions.

      for instnace, i would be in favor of sterilizing most americans. americans would probably disagree with this policy.

    59. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Thaelon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've often thought this was a good idea, but ultimately always rejected it.

      What if we inadvertently cull someone we would have needed later?

      Take Stephen Hawking for example. Ameliotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (the diseas he has) is caused by a genetic defect.

      I'd rather have a large gene pool with lots of genetic variation and a lot of bad genes than a tiny one with no bad genes.

      Say a new virus comes along, there's a good chance SOMEONE will be immune/resistant to it given a large very diverse gene pool. Not so with a small gene pool where everybody is essentially the same.

      Funny how culling the heard is more likely to lead to extinction than a perfect species on a long enough timeline.

      I say we allow each couple that wants children to have at most two A replacement scheme...

      Overpopulation is a problem and it's currently only going to get worse. We need to start controlling population growth now before it gets so bad we have to start sterilizing or killing people.

      --

      Question everything

    60. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by LanceTaylor · · Score: 1

      So how will you feel if someone deems that you are not of sufficient quality and decides that you need to be sterilized? Will you willingly go have the surgical procedure done, or will they have to arrest you and do it to you by force? Who is to decide what a "highly defective trait" is?

      God gave people free will, but you want to take it away.

    61. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      Or, we stop reproducing so much. It's really not that hard...

      That's probably the problem. Or reading Slashdot.

      --
      That is all.
    62. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We don't want to live in Texas.

    63. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! We don't need any roads.

    64. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by totoanihilation · · Score: 1

      And how about building 3- or 4-story houses? ;)
      At least allow for a backyard and some greenery...

      Now I wouldn't want to imagine taking the bus during rush hour...

    65. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by hobbesx · · Score: 1
      And the amount of offspring is inversely proportional to the social level.


      I'm not entirely convinced that this holds true- It does now when social status is pretty well linked with someone's work/social schedule. Granted there's lots of single parents with many kids that are forced to work long hours, but I'd say that the majority of 'successful' people would say that they don't have time for children. I know pretty much nothing of history, but I'd bet that the well-to-do from the feudal era were the people that had the most time and resources to host larger families.

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
    66. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. And I'm sure you can fit all the agriculture, infrastructure, natural resources, and disposal in there as well.

      This anecdote is often repeated, but it just isn't worth its space in print.

    67. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --The problems of world hunger and overcrowding are not problems inherent with having too many people.--

      I've got to agree with this one.

      The main problems have to do with human selfishness which leads to some wanting what others have. This eventually leads down the path to war. If we would stop competing and start cooperating, this would solve most of these problems.

    68. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by staev · · Score: 1

      I think there's an error in your analysis. If you break off a node (man and woman) from the population tree, you not only remove 2 people, but n generations. thereby slowing the rate of increase. Don't ask me about where's a measurable change, I have trouble counting to 21 without dropping my pants.

    69. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What if we inadvertently cull someone we would have needed later?

      Take Stephen Hawking for example. Ameliotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (the diseas he has) is caused by a genetic defect.


      I don't think this is really a sufficient reason to avoid having children with birth defects. By this logic, shouldn't we be having as many children as we all possibly can, because one of them may be the next Hawking or Einstein? If you have a 12-year-old daughter who just started menstrating, you need to fix her up with some guys and get her pregnant right away! One of those eggs she's wasting every month could be an important person! It should be obvious why this is fallacious logic.

      Morever, there's good reason to believe a lot of what makes people who they are is determined by their environment, not just their genetics. If Stephen Hawking's parents had had a different man impregnate his mother, and had raised him the same way, he may have turned out the same but without the disease.

      There's lots of cases where parents intentionally avoid having children, or have a child by one of the parents and a donor, because they know they have a genetic disease which has infected much of their family and don't want to pass it on to their children. This seems very prudent to me.

      However, there's a big difference between a very small number of people taking steps like this to avoid propagating genetic defects and disease, and practicing full-scale Eugenics which really amounts to deciding which race is "superior", which of course is ridiculous and actually harmful because of the smaller gene pool.

      The problem with humans is that we've created a society for ourselves where we no longer have to fight to survive and pass on our genes like the rest of nature does. The weak don't die young, and are able to reproduce. So basically we've overridden natural selection. With that, any arguments comparing humans to herds, extinction, etc. are all moot, since these things simply don't apply to us any more.

    70. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This sounds great as long as I get to live with 3 hot bi chicks!

    71. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 1
      birthrate PLUMET when the pill was introduced Of course. My arguement wasn't against contraceptives. It was against the idea that contraceptives were the magic answer to overpopulation. I would argue that the pill is a symptom of our advancing society, not a cause of it. Meaning we aren't advanced because we have the pill, because we made progress, we introduced the pill.

      The jist of my idea was this, fix how f*ed up the economies are in 3rd world nations, and overpopulation will stop. Empowerment of women is a natural part of that. Most economically stable nations treat women well (none of them are perfect, but...).

    72. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      But even leaving all that aside, we use a lot more space that just what's inside our houses. Notably, we have streets to get between houses and businesses (which also requires space).

      How about this? First, we'll build all the residential buildings 10 stories tall, which means the whole population will fit in 1/10 of Texas. Then we'll build all the roads underground (subways would be better), so they won't take any space at all. Offices will be located in 50-story buildings, and shops will be located in large malls at least 5 stories tall. But with the internet, people will do more of their shopping online, reducing the need for retail space. The rest of the space saved by all the tall buildings can be used for manufacturing facilities, utility installations, etc.

      If people actually wanted to live this way, I think it could be done. However, people don't seem to have this capacity for organization, and also don't seem to like the idea of high-density living.

    73. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, people don't seem to have this capacity for organization, and also don't seem to like the idea of high-density living.

      i dunno, with the obesity epidemic people seem to be ok with the high-density living.

    74. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by hazah · · Score: 1
      A business is nothing more than an information network. There is such a network emerging at an incredible rate that can more than handle most of the common businesses around. The next thing that still has to take space is manufacturing and physical distribution of goods. A good structural design can reduce the space these places require by quite a lot. Underground for instance, or, as usual, build up. Also, since space is more than adequate, the convinience stores can be interlaced with the living space. I consider the air to be a better travel medium than that of roads, and have already seen some odd things flying around here and there.

      There are even conceptual planning of building city like structures that house hundreds of thousands.

      These are, of course, speculations. The point is, the concepts are realistic. The problem is that they require insane investments in design and implementation, not to mention the research involved.

    75. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      It's really not that hard,

      Theoretically. From a practical standpoint, its real hard (no pun intented).

      wealth appears to result in people having fewer children

      But based on one study I read years ago, this is more than offset by the fact that the children of wealthy people have a greater rate of survival to reproductive age and a longer adult life expectancy.

    76. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then all we need is for everyone to jump up and down at the same time to throw the earth off it's orbit!

    77. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      The only practical way to do so is to alter the birth rate.

      But as you mention, its not birth rate alone, but also surviving to reproduce. The wealthier, better educated people who are having fewer children, have children who will very likely live to have children of their own. In some poorer countries with a higher birth rate, a much lower percentage live to have children of their own.

      IIRC there was a study many years ago showing that its actually the higher survival rate of the "wealthier" children that is adding more to population than the higher birth rate of "poorer" children.

      Just an added wrinkle.

    78. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, if half of all adults are sterilized, the reproduction rate will be immediately cut in half.

      Or it may be cut even more dramatically, depending on which half of the population (i.e. male) you eliminate.

      After all, some see that pesky Y chromosome as an undesirable trait.

    79. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by mattsucks · · Score: 1

      Nah, we'd just build one 261,914 floor apartment building on a square mile of land.

      It _is_ Texas, after all.

    80. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      These women have children by the bushels for numerous reasons, but one of the most striking is a concept called numeracy. They don't have it. It is the concept of how many children one has, e.g. only child, 2, 3 then stopping. When you ask a woman is sub-saharran Africa how many children she wants she will reply with something like - "as many as god gives me" or "I don't know what you mean, as many as will come".

      What most studies find about lowering birthrates in the thirdworld is an insanely simple answer: empower women. When women become empowered they begin to feel they can control their environment and by extension their reproduction.


      What does empowering women have to do with changing their cultural outlook? You just said the women were choosing to have as many childern as possible. We tend to think of an "empowered" woman as one with equal education, job oppurinties, and rights as males. But what if after all those things, they still choose to have as many childern as possible because that is their culture?

      My wife and I have 2 kids. We'd have had 3 or maybe 4 if we had the money to support them. I don't understand how those 3rd world women think. I could understand having 2-3 children and stopping, but 5-6 children or worse 9-10 children? I could perhaps support 2 more kids with some difficulty. More than that and I don't know how my wife and I could manage. I couldn't envision my wife having 5-6 children and not being able to properly support any of them.

    81. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by kabocox · · Score: 1


      Size of Texas: 261,914 sq miles (land) = 7.30174326 × 10^12 square feet
      Population of the world: 6,515,511,450 people
      Area / people = 1120.67077 sq ft/person
      Family/group of 4 = 4482.7 sq ft


      You know if you stack those houses you could possibly get them into an area much smaller than Texas.

    82. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "properly support" in your mind vs oceanic or african cultures is VERY different. You think of school from K-12 and then college. They don't give a rat's ass about that. To them the kids need to learn how to make pottery, grow crops, or hunt. A father and mother can teach those tasks easily enough no matter how big the brood is. Here in the "civilized" world we feel shame if our kids don't have this or that. Over there if the kids gets some food and is still alive, that's good enough. Us westerners are appalled at 3rd world people's lack of what we consider basic health care. Over there they got herbs, magic, and who knows what else. Can't see because your nearsighted? Here we get them glasses. Over there they get run over or fall into a river. The point is the outlooks of the people are profoundly different.

    83. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by rmerrill11 · · Score: 1
      "The problem with humans is that we've created a society for ourselves where we no longer have to fight to survive and pass on our genes like the rest of nature does. The weak don't die young, and are able to reproduce. So basically we've overridden natural selection. With that, any arguments comparing humans to herds, extinction, etc. are all moot, since these things simply don't apply to us any more."

      That has concerned me too. But there is still evolution in action.

      These days there are generally more rewards for intelligence (so more breeding opportunities :), and there is still some culling out some of the folks at the bottom of the intelligence spectrum.

    84. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by tloh · · Score: 1

      Generally I would agree with you, but Humanity ceased to be "natural" a long time ago. Our instincts and behaviours are no longer aligned with optimal survival strataties as "nature" understands it. Just a few of many examples: How healthy is it to pursue the bone-thin supermodel figure that passes for beauty in today's ad-driven media? As the causes of numerous world conflicts throughout history, how useful, really, is religion to survival in the bio-evolutionary sense?

      Natural selection? Human Beings? No longer relevent.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    85. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's another calculation...

      Check out this page about 'ghost acres'. It calculated that roughly 9.1 acres is needed to sustain one person.

      1 acre is 42560 sqft... so each person needs 396396 sqft. Round it to 0.4 million sqft / person.

      With 6,515,511,450 people, you will need roughly 2.6 billion million sqft for the world's population!!! A less confusing number: 2,600,000 billion.

      The earth has roughly 57,500,000 sq miles of land surface... with 27,878,400 sq feet per sq miles, we have:

      1,603,008,000,000,000 sqft of surface area on earth.... which is 1,603,008 billion.

      Guess what? We don't have enough space to sustain everyone if everyone want to have the type of lifestyle as we have in the U.S.

    86. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      So, we'll be growing people in square box apartments like Japanese farmers grow melons in glass boxes?

    87. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about time Texas made itself useful ...

    88. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 1
      Funny.

      I read an article in the Wall St. Journal today (right next to the one on hibrination, oddly enough) about how in many cases, genes actually take a back seat to envoirnment.

      Example: There is a "violent gene" that was discovered, and linked to agression and crime. Looking at it more closely, biologists realized that it is only a factor in PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ABUSED. If someone had the "violent gene" and was abused as a child, they were twice as likely to commit violent crime as someone without the gene. But looking at those without a history of abuse, the statistics for those with and without the gene were identical.

      Social Eugenics is pretty much dead. Every day there is another nail in the coffin. Genes mean very little in the grand scheme of things.

      Cultural evolution, though, may have an interesting future. During the cold war, the US had a certain culture, as defined by our economy, values,, beliefs etc, that was at war with the USSR. This kind of struggle exists today, though not on the same kind of epic, end of the world scale as before. What makes a culture strong? How do cultures change? This is an area for future study.

    89. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by n0nsensical · · Score: 1

      We're NOT doing either of those things in the first place, that's the point. Sure, we could do better, but there's no reason that what we're doing is not sustainable in the long term. The U.S. could easily support a population an order of magnitude higher than what it is now.

    90. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by innerweb · · Score: 1
      200 years ago, a transplant was impossible. In 200 years, many if not most (or all) of the issues will be dealt with. Cloning will become easy at some point. It probably will happen much sooner than that. There is too much financial incentive in the live stock (pet) world to have clones.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    91. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      Well, I live in the Third World, and there are plenty of studies that show that poor people actually have more children, because they usually can then live off their children.

      http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2002/espanol/ch7/page4.ht m (In spanish, there must be an English version somewhere)

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    92. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The main problems have to do with human selfishness which leads to some wanting what others have.

      That's certainly a factor. Distributing food to third world countries is expensive. But that problem would be solved if we just had completely open borders. Of course, that'd mean higher taxes or a lower standard of living for us.

      On the other hand, technology is resolving the problem from the other end. People sharing all the world might never happen, but I would think technology will eventually reach the point where starvation is a thing of the past.

    93. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by emotionus · · Score: 1

      again. Cloning some animals is not like cloning other animals.

    94. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by hobbesx · · Score: 1
      Thanks! s/espanol/english/ :)


      Even that report says that the connection between education, poverty and the number of children isn't really understood. It does say that they know that women who are educated are more likely to be in the labor force to help educate their children. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it's interesting. Thanks again!

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
    95. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by edbulldog · · Score: 1

      I think the word used was "Saving". Drop dead? No, that was not the point at all. Almost-mortal accident? Terminal Disease? Why not dying when your time is supposed to come? Now, this is were the problem resides.

      Death, just like Life, deserves respect.

    96. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with humans is that we've created a society for ourselves where we no longer have to fight to survive and pass on our genes like the rest of nature does. The weak don't die young, and are able to reproduce. So basically we've overridden natural selection.

      Of course we do. We fight against disease, bacteria, suicidal depression, each other... we are by no means immune to premature death.

      "Natural selection" is a tautology. "Survival of the fittest" means those creatures which are most fit to survive, survived. How do we measure fitness? Well, we check to see what survived....
      so our metric parses down to: "That which survived, survived". It's not predictive, except probablistically.

      After all, if a wise, strong, mighty tribe of people live on island A, and a puny, stupid, and cowardly tribe of people live on island B, and a tsunami wipes out island A forever: any people in that area will have descended from the people on island B. They were the "fittest" by virtue of not being hit by a killer tsunami, despite being weaker, dumber, and less brave.

      And so forth... don't read into natural selection more than actually exists. It's really not that deep.
      --
      AC

    97. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Draknor · · Score: 1

      Of course, I don't advocate putting everyone in Texas - I much prefer Wisconsin ;-) And I agree - it's a fairly useless (albeit interesting) statistic, like your Rhode Island number. I did the math simply to prove to myself (and other /.'ers) that gp wasn't just making things up.

      As others have noted, living space is a very small portion of the space required to actually sustain life, especially given the US's average quality of life. A lot of land & resources goes into producing food, housing, tools, transportation, plumbing, etc.

      But the gp's main point, which I agree with, is that world hunger is not a problem of lack of supply. We can produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is distribution - getting the food distributed fairly among people. Food is power - control the food supply, and you can control the people.

      Interesting tangent - The Story of B is a fictional story where the protagonist has a theory that (to put it simply) totalitarian agriculture has lead us to this situation where we are today, precisely because of this issue of linking food & power. A very interesting read - I highly recommend checking it out!

    98. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point.

      The point is that many women just don't have the option of saying "no, I don't want any more kids". And not having the option can/will lead to the view that there's nothing you can do about it.

      Imagine that there were no contraceptives available to you and your wife. How would you stop having kids? Would you be willing to give up sex?

      Now imagine that you live someplace where it's assumed that your wife is more or less your property, and having kids (or not) is "her problem". Would you still be okay with not gettign even a little of "what you're entitled to"?

      If you answered "yes" to both questions, congratulations. You're a great person. But not everyone is.

      And that is why empowering women and making contraceptives available is important. Sorry about the feminist rant. (Never imagined I'd ever type that sentence...)

    99. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if you *really wanted*, and you could build towers of the nessecary height, you could fit everyone into a plot of land the exact same width and dept as the fattest person in the world.

    100. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lot easier in metric ;)

    101. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by AoT · · Score: 1

      So a society based on getting an absurd amount of our needs, energy and food to name a couple, from a finite resource, oil, is sustainable? I do not follow your logic.

    102. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about the fifth one, whho left them before they became famous? What was his name again? ..Sonny ...Johnny..

    103. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by n0nsensical · · Score: 1

      Why, yes, it IS sustainable. I'm glad you asked. I admit energy could be an issue, but certainly not food. When the oil runs out, it would be a short-term problem, but we could easily use nuclear (fission) and renewable energy until fusion is a viable source. The reason it hasn't already been done is purely economic, not because doing it would be much of a technological challenge.

    104. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many cultures, children *are* the parents support system, and reducing the number of children they have without improving their standard of living would make their lives shorter and less pleasant. That may not be true in all cultures, but it sure as hell is in some.

    105. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by AoT · · Score: 1

      And how will you switch to nuclear without oil? You do realize that you need to do this well before the oil starts running out. As for the food, You do realize that the vast majority of modern agriculture is based not only on cheap energy for transport but also on loads of oil for pesticides and fertilizer.

    106. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had several effective examples of social solutions to overcrowding. WWII reduced a lot of overcrowding in several places. War is the answer. Reduce surplus population, increase technology. In one generation (or less) the suffering is gone, but the benefits remain.

      War, humanity's best friend.

    107. Re:Not necessarily a good thing.... by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you talking about? I'm more than happy with the size of my house. And it's a good bet that anyone but maybe the richest 15% of the world would love to live in my house. I live on .25 acres. 2/3 of that is my house. There are 3 people living upstairs, 5 people downstairs and my uncle in the basement. I live in NYC (Staten Island) and I think with the 9 people, 81 acres would be overkill.

      Half of us would never see the edge of the land (my grandmother being too old, my 2 cousins being to young, my sister being too lazy, my father not caring.) And there are rich people living in Manhatten with a large apartment in a large apartment building but they still don't have 9 acres. Maybe you live in the mid west where there is a lot of land with small houses, but I'd never want to live out there. I like being close to my neighbors, stores nearby, restaurants, and just about everything I could ever want.

  11. In related news, by firecrotch18 · · Score: 1, Funny

    NAMBLA is starting a mail order business. Just thaw him out and you're ready to go!

    1. Re:In related news, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is with /.? That is NOT funny in the least. Mods need to get a better sense of humor.

    2. Re:In related news, by firecrotch18 · · Score: 1

      you need to lighten up! In this post-9/11 world, we can't afford to have our moral eroded by irresponsible nattering nabobs of negitivety. http://www.stern.de/unterhaltung/fotografie/538808 .html?nv=cp_L2_rt

    3. Re:In related news, by crunk · · Score: 1

      +1 oh so wrong

      --
      It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
  12. Original Science Article by nigham · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    I don't want to read /. I want to go home and re-think my life.
    1. Re:Original Science Article by rubicon7 · · Score: 1

      At the risk of drawing a wrathful "get BugMeNot!" comment, does anyone have a non-reg link?

      --
      --- We are not in the 8th dimension. We are over New Jersey.
    2. Re:Original Science Article by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      No, and the moderators who modded that up are a bunch of slack-jawed fucking retards for not checking the link first. Subscriptions to Science run about $100 a year (less if you're a student), and there are no BugMeNot logins that will work.

  13. Or by Omkar · · Score: 1

    Fry could just go look in New Mexico.

    Wait, would they have gone back in time if Fry hadn't been frozen in the first place? What if Fry dug Bender up today and moved to Roswell (avoiding hibernation). [brain explodes].

    1. Re:Or by Foobie · · Score: 1

      Wait, would they have gone back in time if Fry hadn't been frozen in the first place? The question is irrelevant Fry HAD to go into the future so he could eventually come back to do 'The Nasty in the Pasty' and save the universe from th e Brain Spore and all that. But probably most importantly the nasty.

    2. Re:Or by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      To quote the professor in that particular episode, "Take that, causality!"

    3. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not another one of those God-forsaken time paradoxes! The future is the past and the past is the future. It all gives me a headache."

  14. Please put me in hibernation by Travoltus · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I'll be alive when Duke Nukem Forever is finally released. :)

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Please put me in hibernation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think the developers will be?

    2. Re:Please put me in hibernation by msh104 · · Score: 1

      perhaps they 'll open source it at the end of there lives... :P

    3. Re:Please put me in hibernation by masklinn · · Score: 1

      I think you actually need a source to open it

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    4. Re:Please put me in hibernation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA YOU ARE FUNNY

    5. Re:Please put me in hibernation by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 1

      I think humans will advance to the next step in evolution before that happens.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
  15. why? by tsioc · · Score: 5, Funny

    why? oh why did it have to be THAT molecule?

    1. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? oh why did it have to be THAT molecule?

      The other ones dozed off.

  16. Olson Twins by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wake me up when the Olson Twins are legal.

    Wait, nevermind...

    --
    "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
    1. Re:Olson Twins by thecardinal · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when the Olson twins have finally put on a bit of weight.

    2. Re:Olson Twins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been that for several years already. It all depends in what country you happen to live in. In mine, the age is 15.

    3. Re:Olson Twins by Albio · · Score: 1

      In mine it's 14. But when they return to US soil, they'd have broken the law and (supposedly) be procescuted.

    4. Re:Olson Twins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that you care what happens to them afterwards...

    5. Re:Olson Twins by nighthawk127127 · · Score: 1
      Wake me up when...
      • Microsoft makes a reliable version of Windows.
      • The Ender's Game movie is released... and it doesn't suck.
      • I get my free iPod.
      • People stop their constant bitching about politics and decide to make the world a better place.
      • A colony gets started on the moon/humans land on Mars.
      • Spam as we know it no longer exists.
      • Global Wi-Fi coverage (or at least national)
      (/wishlist)

      ...you get the idea.

      "And while I'm at it, I'd like a pony"
      --
      10100111001
    6. Re:Olson Twins by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Tell you what, we'll wake you up when you have a shot with them. ....so much cheaper....

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:Olson Twins by RichardX · · Score: 1


      Wake me up when...
      [...]
      I get my free iPod. [with link]
      [...]
      Spam as we know it no longer exists.

      Anything I add at this point would probably only detract from the irony

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    8. Re:Olson Twins by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. If they weren't in the USA when they did it, they didn't break US law at all.

    9. Re:Olson Twins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some US states, the age is 16, so depending on where they are...

    10. Re:Olson Twins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if you like fat chicks there are MILLIONS of them in the US. Believe me, I see them everywhere. Go hang out at the Krispy Kreme if that's your preferred body style. Just don't go wishing for extra weight on the few skinny girls we have left :)

    11. Re:Olson Twins by eggsome · · Score: 1

      Wrong, check here.
      It dosen't matter where you go the law goes with you.
      I personnaly think it is pretty stupid, as more and more laws become extraterritorial you will eventually get to the point where, while visiting a country with contradicting laws to your own your "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

      --
      If they made a movie of your life, would anybody buy a ticket?
    12. Re:Olson Twins by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Extraterritorial laws doesn't make sense. Actually, it's remerkably stupid. It should always be so that the laws of my country is what anyone, foreigner or not, must obey, and the same in any other country. That's why the age of consent is 15 over here no matter what it is in your country. Anything else is stupid, and therefor should not be implemented.

  17. Quite the interesting point by Rie+Beam · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "But he added that any procedure in a clinical setting would likely be administered via injection rather than by getting patients to inhale a gas."

    Injectable Hybernation. I'm sure this can't be abused in any way whatsoever.
    1. Re:Quite the interesting point by msh104 · · Score: 1

      so that's how "set to stun" fasers work!

    2. Re:Quite the interesting point by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Funny
      It would sure make airliners a lot quieter.

      Actually, as a parent I can think of a few times where a few hours of peace could be a really good thing. Now the question is do I administer it to me or the child...

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    3. Re:Quite the interesting point by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1
      ... as a parent I can think of a few times where a few hours of peace could be a really good thing. Now the question is do I administer it to me or the child...

      You're kidding right? So the people that bring babies on airplanes really don't know how irritating it is? I'll give you a hint: There's a reason the bring out the drink cart early when there's a baby on the plane.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    4. Re:Quite the interesting point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats "phasers"

    5. Re:Quite the interesting point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phasers. As in phases of matter.

    6. Re:Quite the interesting point by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is your point?

      If anyone wants to kill/silence/ect you, he could just inject some air to kill you or some normal sedative and than do whatever he wants in as much time as he wants.

      So why does the facts that the hibernation can be started by injection make it in any way abusable? Wouldnt airborne starting much worse?

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    7. Re:Quite the interesting point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was talking about sexual abuse...i.e new date rape drug.

    8. Re:Quite the interesting point by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      ah, well. I didnt think that way, but my point is still valid: Why setting up a infusion if you can just put some drops in the drink?

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    9. Re:Quite the interesting point by rob_squared · · Score: 0

      The demand for roofies will greatly decrease.

      --
      I don't get it.
    10. Re:Quite the interesting point by bluGill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your child will only be a child for a short time. I know it is hard when the kid is crying in your face and won't shut up, but take the time to enjoy it. In just a few years the kid will be crying about something else, and a few years latter wrecking your car (unless you teach safe driving by example now, and even then good luck). Then suddenly he is gone and you will realize how much you miss the kid crying in your face.

      It is hard to keep proper perspective, but when you are in that situation remind yourself of it.

    11. Re:Quite the interesting point by kabocox · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, as a parent I can think of a few times where a few hours of peace could be a really good thing. Now the question is do I administer it to me or the child...

      Most definitely the kids. I'd love summer vacations. We could just put the kids in storage for the summer and it would just be me and my wife until August when we'd have to wake them and send them to school again.

      Maybe it would be easier if we developed year round public boarding schools.

    12. Re:Quite the interesting point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you use hibernation on the child. You could keep it as a baby or toddler for many years, only waking it up every few days to prove that it isn't dead.

  18. What I expect... by Rie+Beam · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Finally, after being in a constant state of hibernation for the last fifty years, I am ready to greet the future!"

    "Yeah...about that...we all kinda went in after you...so science and technology is about at the same point you left off."

    "So I still have cancer?"

    "Technically, yes. But hey, at least that asteroid never hit...right?"

    1. Re:What I expect... by bronney · · Score: 1

      Exactly lmao! This would be perfect for a Dilbert. What if the greatest minds hibernate? I can see it for space travel but for medical applications, isn't it a bit "unethical" to put the world behind you so they can work while you sleep? nvm.. people are doing this already.

  19. You wouldn't smell it for long by Andy+Mitchell · · Score: 5, Informative
    Humans wouldn't necessarily appreciate the smell of hydrogen sulphide while being placed into suspended animation

    One of the effects of hydrogen sulphide exposure is that is "paralyses" the sense of smell before a fatal dose is reached. This is normally very dangerous as people can think they have left the contaminated area while continuing in fact to breathe in more of the toxic gas.

    So chances are you wouldn't have to put up with the smell too long, before you either stop smelling, die horribly or maybe just go into suspended animation.

    1. Re:You wouldn't smell it for long by mcc · · Score: 1

      So chances are you wouldn't have to put up with the smell too long, before you ... die horribly

      Well, the point is, you've stopped moving, right?

      Well then.

      CYROSTASIS WORKS!

    2. Re:You wouldn't smell it for long by Feneric · · Score: 2, Funny
      Humans wouldn't necessarily appreciate the smell of hydrogen sulphide while being placed into suspended animation

      I doubt the mice do, either.

    3. Re:You wouldn't smell it for long by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      Kind of like the way the backups at a company I worked at once went... they could back up as much as we wanted. The problems appeared when they tried to restore them. (And no, I wasn't in that department.)

  20. wont somebody think of the children ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wont somebody think of the children??

    1. Re:wont somebody think of the children ???? by firecrotch18 · · Score: 1

      Oh trust me, NAMBLA is waaay ahead of you.

  21. How about by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using these in prisons?

    Seems a bit better then the death penalty, would also actually make those 600 year jail sentences mean something =)

    One day you go to jail, 5 years later you wake up anew.

    Remind anyone of Demolition Man? Good because it should!

    1. Re:How about by datafr0g · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's better than the death penalty (hell, what isn't?) but as there would likely be no concept of time while in hibernation and therefore no real deterrant, prison would be used moreso as a time machine by people.

      "Wanna see what it's like in the future? Kill someone today!"

      --
      "Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
    2. Re:How about by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 2, Funny
      Reminds me of the Red Dwarf episode where Rimmer is sentenced for 1,167 counts of second-degree murder (failure to seal a drive plate properly on Red Dwarf, which killed the whole crew except Lister, who was in stasis).

      "Each count carries a statutory penalty of eight years penal servitude. In the light of your hologrammatic status, these sentences are to be served consecutively, making a total sentence of nine thousand, three hundred and twenty-eight years."

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    3. Re:How about by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Well not really, because your metabolism is still going on, just much much slower then it normally would. So not only would you end up waking up say 600 years later, you would also feel 40 years older with an incredibly weak body probablly due to deterioration of muscles and bones. Plus when you wake up 600 years later, your family and everyone you know is gone, poof. And maybe they could condition you while your in prison with unpleasant thoughts =) (600 years of dropping the soap in the virtual world heh)

      Then again, im a physicist not a biologist so I dunno.

    4. Re:How about by aerthling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would just defeat the purpose of prison.

      Being sent to prison is not just a way to keep criminals from harming society (again), it's also (primarily?) a punishment..

    5. Re:How about by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Technically no. Prisons are there for reform, punishment is a side effect.

      Our penal system is based on the "Penetentiary" concept developed by the Quakers. Basically, sitting in a room, unable to leave, and deprived of your senses gives you time to think about your crimes. It also turned out to be a reasonably heinous form of psychological torture.

      So around the 1960s they watered down the Penetentiary concept, and we got what is more or less the modern "Convict Warehouse". Fitting as many bodies as possible into a confined space without them killing each other.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    6. Re:How about by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Well, the key point of demolition man was not that they freeze criminals, it's that they subject the prisoners to personality altering technology which takes a very long time to be effective, therefore they have to be frozen. When they get thawed out they're happy functional members of society.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:How about by philbert26 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Our penal system is based on the "Penetentiary" concept developed by the Quakers. Basically, sitting in a room, unable to leave, and deprived of your senses gives you time to think about your crimes. It also turned out to be a reasonably heinous form of psychological torture.

      The trouble is, not all criminals care about what they've done. Some of them just don't feel pity or remorse.

      CS Lewis argued against a purely penetentiary model of justice on the grounds that it would lead to disproportionate punishment. If we discount punishment as a motive for putting people in jail, then the only reason to send people to jail is to reform them and protect the public. This means that instead of sending people to jail for a fixed time that matches how much punishment the criminal deserves, it is more logical to imprison people until they see the error of their ways and are deemed safe to release. But in some cases this could take a very long time, and there are some criminals who will never be reformed.

      Are we really willing to put people in jail indefinitely? It was proposed here in the UK that "psycopathic" criminals who were judged a permanent danger could be subject to open-ended detention. This met widespread opposition from people who, I assume, feel that jail sentences should fit the crime (ie, they believe in just and proportionate punishment, rather than simply the necessary evil of reformative incarceration).

      As another Slashdotter once put it, imagine if someone was in jail for sharing MP3s online. Should they stay there until they can convince the parole board that they're sorry and won't do it again, even if that takes years? I would say that the punishment for copyright infringement should be proportionate to the harm it causes. Those who make illegal copies should only be punished as much as their crime deserves to be punished. Under a purely penetentiary regime, the whole question of punishment and how much a person deserves to be punished is irrelevant.

      Reforming criminals is a vital part of the justice system, but I wouldn't like a society where it was the only part. I don't believe in insanely heavy penalties for file sharing. Likewise I would be angered if a murderer got off with a light sentence on the grounds that he was unlikely to do it again.

    8. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea.

      Even better, if they make it to human testing, they can use prisoners for that, too.

    9. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It was proposed here in the UK that "psycopathic" criminals who were judged a permanent danger could be subject to open-ended detention. This met widespread opposition from people who, I assume, feel that jail sentences should fit the crime

      Those judged to be criminally insane are detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure, i.e. indefinitely, typically in a secure mental hospital. This is currently the law in the UK for those judged to be criminally insane (e.g. psychopathic). So I am not sure where you get the idea this might have been some new proposal. Ian Brady, Dennis Neilsen, etc fit into the criminally insane category.

      In theory a life sentence in the UK is for life - it never expires, but the tariff served in prison is less than life before release on licence. A significant proportion (10 to 20 per cent AFAIK) have this licence revoked at some point for some period of time and are put back into prison.

      What has changed is that the Home Secretary no longer has the right to set the tariff, only judges.

    10. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Likewise I would be angered if a murderer got off with a light sentence on the grounds that he was unlikely to do it again.


      This covers most murdered - the recidivism rate is low.


      What we need (for lesser crimes) are expanded community sentences. Banging up a file sharer, say, where they can become a drug addict and learn to break into houses effectively doesn't really help. Community sentences need not be a soft option and could actually do something useful - there are a lot of tasks like cleaning, repainting public buildings and the like that could be done by people on community services for no more than the £300 it day it costs to put someone in prison, and could be hard, reforming work to boot.

    11. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean murderers!

    12. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not much of a punishment, is it? You would just skip the whole thing. What's the point?

    13. Re:How about by philbert26 · · Score: 1
      Those judged to be criminally insane are detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure, i.e. indefinitely, typically in a secure mental hospital. This is currently the law in the UK for those judged to be criminally insane (e.g. psychopathic). So I am not sure where you get the idea this might have been some new proposal. Ian Brady, Dennis Neilsen, etc fit into the criminally insane category.

      I'm not talking about people who are insane in the legal sense. I'm talking about people with "personality disorders" who know the difference between right and wrong but don't care. Such people know that violence is illegal, because they lie to cover up their actions. Contrast to the insanity defence cases, where the offender often waits calmly for police and freely confesses their delusional stories to the police. To be insane, you have to not know the difference between right and wrong, no? If you know but have no emotional barrier to doing wrong things, that isn't itself (AFAIK) grounds for detention.

      The idea that psycopaths could be locked up indefinitely without committing a crime that carries a life sentence is a relatively new proposal to me, I first heard about it in 1999.

    14. Re:How about by king-manic · · Score: 1

      That would just defeat the purpose of prison.

      Being sent to prison is not just a way to keep criminals from harming society (again), it's also (primarily?) a punishment..


      This would be more effective, it carries less of the "desperation" effect that the death penalty causes, while severly punishing the criminal.

      When he wakes, everyone he knows is now dead. He's cut off from his criminal networks/community, Everything he knows is now useless.

      Severe penalties don't deter crime, they encourage desprate attempts to avoid arrest. Instead of giving up to the police when he's caught for armed robbery, he'll take prisoners. Instead of quitely leaving the scene of a crime, he will kill all witnesses.

      The point of the justice system should be crime prevention and severe penalties don't do that. For some criminals such as pedophiles and sex offenders I think capital punishment is justified since their rates of re-offence is extremely high but for other crimes it should be re-hibilitation. Even killing pedophiles and sex offenders after a few offences can result in more brutal crimes, but the same pool of degenerates tend to commit many of those offences so simply killing them would reduce those types of crime.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    15. Re:How about by king-manic · · Score: 1

      The idea that psycopaths could be locked up indefinitely without committing a crime that carries a life sentence is a relatively new proposal to me, I first heard about it in 1999.

      Canada has a "dangerous offenders" label. This allows indefinite detention to those labeled a habitual danger to the public. It's rarely used (out of a pop of 32 mil, about 15 have been labeled DA). It's somewhat undemocratic but is a useful tool to protect the public, which is the whole reason a government exsists.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    16. Re:How about by rosie_bhjp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well technically the rate of recidivism is pretty low for those murdered.

      --
      A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
    17. Re:How about by FarHat · · Score: 1

      Umm. What makes you think that way? Prisons are pretty much completely for punishment. Any reform, if it happens is despite the prison system not because of it.

      --
      At the intersection of computation and biology.
    18. Re:How about by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Well, the key point of demolition man was not that they freeze criminals, it's that they subject the prisoners to personality altering technology which takes a very long time to be effective, therefore they have to be frozen.

      It was kind of a throwback to the book that Demolition Man is inspired by, "A Brave New World". Yes, you heard me, the classic Alderous Huxley book. In the book, people were preconditioned to like certain roles during their embronic and growth phases.

      If you still doubt me on the "based on" bit, consider this. Sandra's character was called "Lenina Huxley", and the main female lead was called Lenina. She says in the film "John, you're a savage", a nod towards John Savage. Snipes says as some point "It's a brave new world". Here's the trivia page on the movie.

      I actually quite like the flick, though to be honest I like any future imagary, whether it's a utiopia or distopia. The prospect of hibernation is interesting. If you could be frozen for 40-50 years, I'd do it just to see the gadgets everyone was carrying! ;-) Seriously though, it's worth a thought, you get to see how things turn out.

    19. Re:How about by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Replying to my own post, but I missed the scariest part. From the IMDB link I provided earlier:
      Lenina Huxley tells John Spartan about the Arnold Schwarzenegger Library, explaining that, based on the sheer popularity of his movies, a Constitutional amendment was passed in order for Schwarzenegger to run for president, which, according to Huxley, he did. In 2003, ten years after this film's release, Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California and shortly after his election, three senators separately proposed amendments to the US Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to become president.
    20. Re:How about by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Are we really willing to put people in jail indefinitely? It was proposed here in the UK that "psycopathic" criminals who were judged a permanent danger could be subject to open-ended detention. This met widespread opposition from people who, I assume, feel that jail sentences should fit the crime (ie, they believe in just and proportionate punishment, rather than simply the necessary evil of reformative incarceration).

      As another Slashdotter once put it, imagine if someone was in jail for sharing MP3s online. Should they stay there until they can convince the parole board that they're sorry and won't do it again, even if that takes years? I would say that the punishment for copyright infringement should be proportionate to the harm it causes. Those who make illegal copies should only be punished as much as their crime deserves to be punished. Under a purely penetentiary regime, the whole question of punishment and how much a person deserves to be punished is irrelevant.

      Reforming criminals is a vital part of the justice system, but I wouldn't like a society where it was the only part. I don't believe in insanely heavy penalties for file sharing. Likewise I would be angered if a murderer got off with a light sentence on the grounds that he was unlikely to do it again.


      I believe that you almost answered the comment that I'm about to post. I was think those in UK remember reading in history class about debtors prisons and indentured servants that were used to colonize both the US and Australia. Not to mention political prisoners that the government or those in power in the government don't like.

      This analogy isn't good. Think of Bill Gates being in power some where in government or just controlling the government though the shadows. Now there is a law that outlaws Linux. Those that work on Linux now get jailed either for some number of years, or until they've been brainwashed what they have done is wrong and they will not do it again. I hope that bad analogy atleast gets people thinking along the lines that I want.

    21. Re:How about by sjames · · Score: 1

      It was proposed here in the UK that "psycopathic" criminals who were judged a permanent danger could be subject to open-ended detention. This met widespread opposition from people who, I assume, feel that jail sentences should fit the crime (ie, they believe in just and proportionate punishment, rather than simply the necessary evil of reformative incarceration).

      Not necessarily. Another good reason to oppose the idea is that it creates an open ended ticket for abuse. It's bad enough that an innocent person can end up wrongly incarcerated for a definate time, even worse if they can be incarcerated until they can demonstrate that a non-existant psychological condition is cured.

      In principle, I agree with the penetentiary model. In practice, we have no proper objective way to measure a criminal's reform other than releasing them and seeing if they re-offend.

      We probably SHOULD re-evaluate statutes of limitation, especially for crimes where there currently isn't one. I argue that there is no point in prosecuting an elderly person even for a murder committed in their youth. If they managed to live 30 or 40 years without doing it again, odds are they won't murder in the next 10 to 20 years either. Either the original crime was a truly exceptional circumstance, or he has already learned somewhere in the years that we would hope to teach him in jail.

      I would argue that our current system probably CAUSES more crime than it prevents. We take someone who commits a crime, and lock them up in a prison that bears no resemblance to society. They rot there a few years, then we toss them out. If several years living under brutal prison rules haven't done enough to make sure they fail to fit into society, we help assure their failure by making sure they tell potential employers about their conviction. We then act surprised when they commit another crime.

      The above is particularly shameful when the original conviction is for a victimless crime such as drug posession.

  22. Alternative to freezing ? by icejai · · Score: 1

    I wonder who will be the first to undergo this procedure sometime before they're about to die.

    Maybe they'll pay somebody to put them into hibernation when they're 75 years old and tired of life, and have instructions to wake them up when we finally have flying cars.

    1. Re:Alternative to freezing ? by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      So they wake up the 75-y-o in 2400 or whenever, he lasts about a year then pops his clogs. Hardly worth coming in the first place!

    2. Re:Alternative to freezing ? by burdalane · · Score: 1

      If eternal youth is still unavailable by the time I'm 75 years old, I wouldn't mind hibernating until it is. If I get tired of life, there's always suicide.

  23. Re:BBC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, I bet the next thing you're gonna tell me is that the New York Times reports stuff that occured outside of NYC. Pshh, whatever.

  24. After the IT Offshore Boom finish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please can you bring me up when the IT offshore shift boom crashed.

  25. Brains in jars by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's funny that Futurama has the technological development of two distinct and competing technologies for longevity. Fry gets frozen in the chrogenics centre, wakes up in the future and, a few episodes later, discovers that celebrities live on as brains in jars. If we had the technology to keep a human brain alive and kicking I'd much prefer that to getting my head lopped off and frozen in the hope that a sufficiently advanced technology will one day be able to revive me. Even if it ment I had to spend the rest of my days as a body-less paraplegic in a wheelchair I think I'd rather that than to die from cancer.

    Hybernation offers a third technology. Instead of lopping off my head at the first sign of cancer, you could put my body into hybernation and keep my brain active with regular stimulation. Hopefully you could do it by jacking me into a video game. I could handle living in MxO, as long as it was on a non-hostile server. Maybe I could even earn a living as a member of the Live Events team.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Brains in jars by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of installing the brain in a big body bristling with military equipment even better.

      "Now who's kicking who around?"

    2. Re:Brains in jars by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing that they never explained was how the got the heads in jars of people who died long before the technology was developed, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Yeah, I know. It's a cartoon. I shouldn't take it too seriously, but even a funny explanation would do.

    3. Re:Brains in jars by emamousette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, TFA points out that cancer cells don't need as much oxygen to continue their growth. Basically, your healthy cells would be hibernating but the cancer would keep growing and they'd have to keep moving your body to a bigger and bigger vat. Is it just me or does the whole process just smack of controlled oxygen deprivation with a side serving of reduced metabolism? 9 Hours is a long time to be oxygen deprived and there was no mention of how the mice did on standardized tests after they were revived. After all, what's the point of sleeping all the way to Mars and then not being able to operate any of the machinery (let alone wipe one's own buttocks) after arrival?

    4. Re:Brains in jars by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I figured it was some sort of artificial creation of brains to be kept in jars. Theoretically you could program a computer to study everything a famous person ever was recorded as saying, combine that with known world events of the time and come up with a pretty good computer model of that person. Then you just need to print out a brain with a standard neural imprinter and you're done.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Brains in jars by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      It's funny that Futurama has the technological development of two distinct and competing technologies for longevity. Fry gets frozen in the chrogenics centre, wakes up in the future and, a few episodes later, discovers that celebrities live on as brains in jars.

      It also means they can have celebrity guest spots on the show... ;-)

    6. Re:Brains in jars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting point, however, since the patient's cells require less oxygen I don't see why it would be a problem.

      It may be oxygen deprivation to you and me, but to someone who only needs 10% of what we breathe, it's full-throttle.

    7. Re:Brains in jars by Snover · · Score: 1

      Put your body in statis and hook your brain into a computerised world? Sounds sorta familiar...

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    8. Re:Brains in jars by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      MxO == The Matrix Online, hope my post makes more sense now.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  26. Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can catch up on all my sleep!

  27. Welcome to the World of Tomorrow! by janek78 · · Score: 5, Funny



    Hey, I was frozen, I know what guy wants to hear first: the bathroom's that way.

    </end of obligatory Futurama quote>

    1. Re:Welcome to the World of Tomorrow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      / signifies an end tag; saying "end of" is redundant. If you want to look geeky-cool, you have to look like you have a clue about the geeky syntax.

    2. Re:Welcome to the World of Tomorrow! by janek78 · · Score: 1

      Damn, you're right. I added the "geeky syntax" in the last moment, forgot to take the text out. But last time I checked, I was not a geek, so hopefully this will not damage my geeky karma too much. :)

      But thanks for pointing that out.

    3. Re:Welcome to the World of Tomorrow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you ALWAYS do that?

    4. Re:Welcome to the World of Tomorrow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you ever heard of a little thing called showmanship?

    5. Re:Welcome to the World of Tomorrow! by IndefiniteArticle · · Score: 1

      I think guy would rather hear: the indefinite article's that way.

  28. We develop Medical Software by Chitlenz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And what strikes me right off (because of my field) is, if a 'hibernation' state can be easily and mobily achieved, you could save a LOT of critical cases by slowing them down right at the point of injury or on the ambulance, maybe even before moving them. That would have a definite positive benefit for sure, though thinking about flying through space in slo-mo is a cool vision too, for sure. =)

    -chitlenz

    --
    Imagination is the silver lining of Intelligence.
  29. bye-bye winter by holdp · · Score: 0

    Out of it from November 'til May. Just what I've
    always wanted.

  30. Good sf fodder by mbrother · · Score: 1

    I'm using some elements of this technology in my next novel (although a lot will get cut in current revisions).

    Hibernation is going to come before any kind of cold sleep or freezing. Kind of silly for science fiction to skip it, even if it is easier on the writer.

    --
    Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    1. Re:Good sf fodder by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Arther C. Clarke beat you to it by 30 years.

      In his novels, Hibernation was induced by a variety of things including an enzyme discovered in bears, to the "Dreamless sleep" used by explorers in 2001.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Good sf fodder by Aidtopia · · Score: 1

      In my sci-fi novel, Kill Switch, long space flight is achieved by killing the astronauts under controlled circumstances, preserving the bodies, and having machines revive them at the destination. It works most of the time; occasionally, though, somebody ends up with amnesia.

    3. Re:Good sf fodder by mbrother · · Score: 1

      Of course he did...Arthur C. Clarke beat everyone to everything. Thanks for the reminder. Reinventing the wheel is easy to do late at night.

      Still, different writers bring different things to the table. In my version, the crew sleeps together in warm, dark dens in the ship with machines that crawl over them and exercises their muscles. Everyone's promiscuous, too, since they're all effectively drunk with the hibernation drugs. Here's the passage introducing hibernation from the current draft.

      "And hibernation?" Sally asked.

      That was always the big question, and one that Griffin had asked an instructor herself. While the blood chemistry and the dirt eating were dramatic, they didn't have as serious an effect on everyday life as hibernation did. Travel time was twenty years each way. Their maximum velocity of 75% light speed would a help a little, slowing shipboard time by a third, but that wasn't all that much in the grand scheme of things. Roundtrip travel time on board the Dark Heart would still be over thirty years.

      So hibernation. The Specialists' gene therapy activated a number of enzymes, primarily pancreatic triglyceride lipase and pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase isozyme 4. Griffin knew the names, had prepped diligently for this part. The enzymes governed how stored fatty acids and glucose were conserved, or not, especially in muscles like the heart, which slowed to just over a beat per minute during hibernation. Hibernation helped preserve muscle tone, but there were mechanical/electrical aids that helped with that part, too.

      Griffin decided not to throw the technical points at them. They'd probably looked those up, much as she had, and were really grasping for reassurance. If you were going to spend the next few decades pulling a Rip Van Wrinkle, wouldn't you be looking for reassurance, too?

      She briefly wondered who was there to reassure her. She was in the same situation they were. Sure, she'd spent six months in hibernation associated with a training exercise, but decades, that was a whole different deal. There were a thousand questions. Did you dream? By what factor was aging really reduced? Were there side effects? Did the condition really lower your inhibitions?

      She knew the academic answers, and could speak from her limited experience, but decided to play it straight. "It's scary. It's like going under for an operation. Being drugged, or drunk. A year feels like a night. You wake a few times, eat and drink some water, worry about a problem or two, and go back to sleep."

      Kim Kelly, a recruit of Asian descent, asked, "Um, exactly how is that different than a normal night?"

      Everyone laughed.

      That was a good sign, Griffin decided. "Okay, put that way maybe it isn't all that scary."

      Klingston caught her eye. Despite a small smile, he didn't look amused or relaxed with his ruddy complexion and squinted eyes. Their gaze locked and she felt a sense of communication as an idea spring full-blown into her mind: what we are now isn't the scary thing, and neither is what we have to do -- what is scary was the consequences of failure.

      If Klingston could convey that seriousness of purpose in but a glance, maybe he had much deeper leadership qualities than she appreciated. A dark leader to be sure, despite his pale complexion, but a leader nonetheless.

      Griffin clapped her hands, "Follow me now onboard the ship. I'll show you the hibernation dens, and more."

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
  31. i understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    > Bender is an alcoholic robot.
    ...i am too.

    1. Re:i understand... by madaxe42 · · Score: 1

      101!

  32. Great! by Eminence · · Score: 1
    That's great news. However, there is no need to ponder possible applications any further because SF authors did that at length over the last 50 or so years. This is just yet another field in which imagination has overtaken reality so now it's just the question of getting it to work. Applications would bloom everywhere as soon as these folks progress from mice to humans.

    Now I'm just waiting for someone to finally find a new energy source.

    1. Re:Great! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Well,

      All these hibernating humans must have some waste energy.

      Perhaps we could connect them up inside their pods and run our computers and machines from the waste energy.

      Just a thought... ;)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa.

      That, coupled with a new form of fusion, would be adequate for our energy needs.

  33. I think... by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 1

    you were looking at an article over there.

  34. Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Letter to my lawyer

    Enclosed in this envelope is my account information. Please wake me up when I can afford a decent spaceship.

    Thank you

    PS. ZZZZZzzzzzzzz

    1. Re:Sweet! by caluml · · Score: 1

      1. Deposit £/$20 in a bank account. 2. Ask to be woken up when the money in your account has accumulated enough interest to be higher than the cost of the hibernation and wakeup procedure. 3. Profit?

    2. Re:Sweet! by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 4, Funny
      1. Deposit £/$20 in a bank account.
      2. Ask to be woken up when the money in your account has accumulated enough interest to be higher than the cost of the hibernation and wakeup procedure.
      3. Be woken up 100 years later when the bank takes possesion of your body due to 100 years of overdue service charges, overdraft interests and late-payment penalties
      4. Have your organs removed so that the bank manager can have them transplanted into his own body so that he may live another 100 years

      Fixed your list, no need to thank me :)
      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    3. Re:Sweet! by MadEE · · Score: 1

      Dear Mr Coward, It seems your account balance had somehow been mistakenly transferred to a Cayman islands account. However as per your wishes I have aranged to have your body ejected into space. A. Lawyer

    4. Re:Sweet! by Bongzilla · · Score: 0

      lol...................

      of course, if I'm going to be bathed in cosmic radiation, I'd want to be asleep for when the radiation sickness sets in.

      --

      ;///////////////////////////////////////////////// /
  35. Didn't they do something like that to the Rabies v by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I thought the person who survived Rabies went through some sort of similar hibernation; where they deliberatelly slowed down and cooled her body (or at least her brain) until she built up an imune system?

  36. Research abstract and paper link from Science by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article and research paper note that they placed the mice in the hibernation state for six hours, without any long-term effects. Unfortunately, I can't find in either the article or paper if they tried longer hibernation periods. If they haven't, I suppose that's the next logical thing to try. Looking at their figures, it seems that the 6 hour mark is about when the body temperature finally finishes asymptoting down to the ambient temperature.

    Anyways, here's the research abstract from Science:

    H2S Induces a Suspended Animation-Like State in Mice

    Eric Blackstone, Mike Morrison, Mark B. Roth

    Mammals normally maintain their core body temperature (CBT) despite changes in environmental temperature. Exceptions to this norm include suspended animation-like states such as hibernation, torpor, and estivation. These states are all characterized by marked decreases in metabolic rate, followed by a loss of homeothermic control in which the animal's CBT approaches that of the environment. We report that hydrogen sulfide can induce a suspended animation-like state in a nonhibernating species, the house mouse (Mus musculus). This state is readily reversible and does not appear to harm the animal. This suggests the possibility of inducing suspended animation-like states for medical applications.

    1. Re:Research abstract and paper link from Science by Illserve · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert on this by any means, but from what I know of physiology:

      There's nothing intrinsically harmful about low temperatures to body temperature, apart from the fact that the heart and lungs can stop working. (assuming you're above freezing!). If they've figured out a way to keep these things going, that should be sufficient. Given that many other mammals can hibernate, the innate mechanisms to survive this type of behaviour are probably inside of us somewhere.

      The important things to keep going are enough blood and oxygen to power your cells' ability to stay alive, and your immune system has to stay on its toes to prevent infection/rot.

      But just as in the case of computer CPU's, if you're not doing much, you won't be burning much energy, or using much oxygen, so heart and lung function can decrease drastically and still keep everything alive.

  37. Im gonna get frozen by future+assassin · · Score: 1
    and come out when Linux is like Windows :) and BeOS is the new Linux.

    http://www.anologger.com/

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Im gonna get frozen by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Are you kidding. By then computers will operate like stereos. People just press the button and magic happens.

      Geeks will have moved on to something else, like artificial organisms.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Im gonna get frozen by future+assassin · · Score: 1
      Geeks will have moved on to something else, like artificial organisms.

      I think you meant orgasms

      Anonymous blogging
      http://www.anologger.com/

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    3. Re:Im gonna get frozen by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      No, we are pretty good at artificial orgasms already.

      Geeks have always been good with their hands.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    4. Re:Im gonna get frozen by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Hold on, they haven't discovered how to travel back in time yet.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
  38. Re:Original Science Article - Full Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Many organisms respond to changes in environmental conditions by entering into a suspended animation-like state in which a decrease in metabolic rate (MR) is followed by a reduction in core body temperature (CBT) (1). Regulated induction of a hypometabolic state is hypothesized to have great medical benefit for a variety of conditions, including ischemia and reperfusion injury, pyrexia, and other trauma (2). Suspended animation-like states may also be useful for creating beneficial hypothermia in surgical situations and for improving organ preservation (1). Inhibiting oxidative phosphorylation reversibly induces states of profound hypometabolism in several model organisms (3-5). Because hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a specific, potent, and reversible inhibitor of complex IV (cytochrome c oxidase), the terminal enzyme complex in the electron transport chain (6), we hypothesized that it could reduce MR and CBT in mammals. When mice were exposed to 80 ppm of H2S, their oxygen (O2) consumption dropped by È50% and their carbon dioxide (CO2) output dropped by È60% within the first 5 minutes (Fig. 1A) (7). If left in this environment for 6 hours, their MR dropped by È90% (Fig. 1A). The MR of control mice, as judged from O2 consumption and CO2 output increases (8). This drop in MR was followed by a drop in CBT to È2-C above ambient temperature (Fig. 1B). The average CBT of these mice reached a minimum of 15-C in an ambient temperature of 13-C (Fig. 1B). At this minimum CBT, both CO2 output and O2 consumption was È10% of normal (Fig. 1A), and the breathing rate of the mice decreased from È120 breaths per minute (BPM) to less than 10 BPM (8). After 6 hours of exposure to H2S, the mice were returned to room air and temperature, and their MR and CBT returned to normal (Fig. 1, A and B). Exposing mice to varying concentrations of H2S revealed a linear relationship between the concentration of H2S and CBT (Fig. 1C). CBT dropped faster and reached lower temperatures as concentrations of H2S increased from 0 to 80 ppm (8), suggesting that the effects of H2S are concentration-dependent. However, this MR reduction is not dependent on ambient temperature (fig. S1). Because H2S can be toxic in high doses, we conducted behavioral and functional tests, selected from the SHIRPA protocol (9), to assay for H2S-induced damage. No behavioral or functional differences in the mice were detected after exposure to 80 ppm of H2S for 6 hours (8). In the absence of H2S, no effect on CBT was observed (Fig. 1B, control atmosphere). In addition, others report no long-term health effects with these H2S concentrations (6). The sequential drop in MR and CBT observed in mice (Fig. 1D) exposed to 80 ppm of H2S is similar to that observed when animals initiate hibernation, daily torpor, or estivation (1). On-demand induction of a suspended animation-like state could provide insight into the mechanisms that govern natural states of reduced metabolism. Lowering metabolic demand in this way could be used to reduce physiological damage resulting from trauma and might improve outcomes after surgery.

  39. Been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Really, I've done this. I hacked my deep freeze to cryogenically freeze me and let me awake in the year 2211. I set up a Unix server to run it all and made sure I had power available until then at least by having my power bill paid from an account into which I deposited $263. I figured the compounding interest over that time would more than pay for the power plus give me a nice nest egg when I awoke. Assuming they still used money in those days. I put myself to sleep on Februray 4th, 2003. Unfortunately I had forgotten to put out dog food for the time I was going to be asleep and poor old Turing (the dog) got a bit restless and he ended up pulling the power on that Unix box. Well, the freezer defrosted, the door popped open and I awoke. First thing I did was turn on the TV. MTV in fact and wow, everything was so different than before. I saw nothing I recognised. I was convinced I had awoken in my choosen time. ThenI looked at my watch and it was February 5th. 2003. Damn the fast moving and ever changing world of popular music.

    1. Re:Been done by markild · · Score: 0

      Look at this from the bright side.

      Things could get pretty interresting the 19th of February 2038 ;)

      I bet i kinda sucks to have to go around half frozen looking for a 64-bit CPU supporting your ancient unix-box

      --
      Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
      Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
    2. Re:Been done by Tekgno · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it was going to wake you in 2211?
      What about the Unix "y2k" of 2038?

  40. Two Questions by Gax · · Score: 1

    Two questions:
    1) How the heck did they persuade mice to eat a poisoned apple?
    2) Where will they find a conveniently unattached prince?

    1. Re:Two Questions by zebs · · Score: 1

      Where will they find a conveniently unattached prince? He got married.

  41. What about aging? by naveenkumar.s · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It can slow the metabolic rate alright, but does it really slow the aging of cells. If it does not do that, it cannot be of much use in space travel. Because there we measure distances in light-years and it will take several years to reach an exosolar object.

    1. Re:What about aging? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even if it's of no use for long-distance space travel, I think this would be still useful for shorter-distance space travel (say, to Mars). After all, it means you have to transport less food and water, and I think a slower metabolic rate also means that the effects of microgravity (like weakening of the bones) are slowed down.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:What about aging? by akadruid · · Score: 1

      You can expand this concept further than long range transport and ambulance work.

      If the ramp-up/down time for this technology is fast enough and the experience not too unpleasent, it could revoloutionise our lifestyles, particularly for transport. Most people endure dull, dangerous and unpleasant transport on a regular basis. Imagine using this technology on that? No-one would fly awake any more, long distance rail travel would become competitive again, commutable distances could be extended dramatically.

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
    3. Re:What about aging? by theufo · · Score: 1

      My guess would be that it could indeed slow aging.

      At the lower temperature, all biochemstry, especially catalyzed by enzymes, is much much slower. That biochemistry includes cellular division, oxidative phosporylation and as a result, the telomeres are shortened slower and radicals are formed at a lower rate.

      But I still don't think you'd live long enough to benefit. See my other reply.

  42. At last an explanation of the shortage of chemists by panurge · · Score: 1
    I always wondered why, when I needed to, it was so hard to recruit decent chemists. Nothing to do with the pharmaceuticals companies hiring all the best people, everything to do with entering the inorganic chem lab and going into a state of suspended animation.

    The amazing thing, given the amount of the stuff you use in basic inorganic analysis, is that any of us got any work done at all.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  43. How do you keep microorganisms... by theufo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From eating you alive? Metabolism is down to 10% of normal conditions and almost all of our enzymes have an optimum around 310 K (37 Degrees C). Immune cells won't be very active in hibernation (282 K, 11 degrees C), while some microorganisms flourish at that temperature. Just put a piece of cheese in your fridge, wait two months and take a look to see what the effects can be.

    Actually there's probably already a couple of billion of them on your skin and completely sterilizing a human being (alive) is long from possible. Six hours of hibernation is one thing, but I wouldn't want to try this for more than a day.

    1. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by rampant+poodle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting point. Concern would also apply to microorganisms normally found in the body, (e.g. intestinal flora). The next question then becomes: What if any effect does the H2S have on microorganisms commonly found on or inside the hibernating subject?

    2. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Spoilsport. But this definitely would be a problem. You couldn't depend on just keeping the person very clean either. After all, once the microbe penetrates the skin, it would be all over. You'd have to wake the person or face a massive infection. The likely solution would be to create defense mechanisms that can fight back in those circumstances. Maybe nanobots or engineered immune cells that operate in cold temperatures.

    3. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by BlueFashoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The human ecosystem (body) is host to ~10e14 bacterial cells. A bit more than a couple of billion. Your dirty. Scrub till you bleed if you want, it won't make much of a difference. They are everywhere, on your eyes, in your ears, in your GI tract, in every little pore on your body, all over the skin, in your mouth. Many of your normal flora can be pretty nasty too, if their virulence genes get turned on. You have a lot of Stahpolococcus sp. in your mouth and on your skin. Under the right conditions, they will betray you.

      As for sterilizing a human, even if it was possible, it would be a very bad idea. Your normal flora are adapted to live peacefully side by side with. They protect you by outcompeting invasive foreign species. They manufacture vitamins in your intestines. It would not be a good idea to get rid of them.

      Sterile people can be made in theory. It's been done with mice. Scientists aseptically cut them out of the uterous and raised them in sterile environments. They lived twice as long as ordinary mice, but they were weak and sickly the entire time and died of strange nasty diseases. Some of these sterile mice were exposed to a normal environment. They died soon after of horrible nasty diseases.

      In summary. Long term refridgeration will cause your little buddies to turn on you and sterilization will lead to a bubble life.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    4. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Trunkboy · · Score: 1

      Pardon my simplicity in this -- but, don't bears do it? I dont' think they wake up rotten zombies in the spring... What's their trick?

    5. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hibernation is a misnomer for what bears do in the winter. Their body temp doesn't really drop all that much.

    6. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Easy! Put the suspended person in a refridgerator! Then again...that might only work for a couple of weeks before mold sets in, judging from my own fridge.

    7. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Illserve · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bats would argue that you are wrong:

      "During hibernation, the bat's body functions slow down, and its body temperature drops to that of its hibernation site"

      http://www.tlgrant.r9esd.k12.or.us/english1/vonl ub ke/bats/batstext.html

    8. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Angry+Toad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a really interesting question - all the same quite a few animals do essentially this for extended periods of some months.

      Why don't their commensal bacteria infect and kill them? That's worth finding out.

    9. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Isldeur · · Score: 1

      Sterile people can be made in theory.

      Sterile people are made all the time. Babies in the womb are sterile.

    10. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Trunkboy · · Score: 1

      Fair enough (I didn't follow the link, but I believe you) -- do any animals *actually* hibernate? And if so, how do they avoid rotting?

      I'm really not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious.

    11. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the process be unmonitored?

      IV with antibiotics and Constant bed turning would probably do the trick(there might be other problems) but we do ok with coma Patients. Your biggest fear should be the governments issistence on Waking you up.

      In a lessened gravity enviroment(space) bed turning wouldnt be as important and cleaner enivorment would be more doable.

      Of course the permanent cripple you would become after years in space MIght be a problem.

    12. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by geek_xyu · · Score: 1

      Thats why you glad wrap the people in air tight seals.. People can't spoil if they are wrapped in plastic..

    13. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      bats hibernate 'properly' IIRC. However no clue how they avoid their bacteria to run amok.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    14. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmm.. Coffin shaped Gladware... :P

    15. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by cowgoesmoo2004 · · Score: 1
      I'm guessing this is part of the difference between being in hibernation and dead. You are still conducting a small portion of lifes processes when you hibernate like this -- it is just greatly reduced.

      In short, the energy you are expending in this state is probably enough to keep your immune system somewhat operational. There are a lot of things we do or are ready to do that take a lot of energy -- that can be cut out without any detriment.

      For example, the brain and liver are both using about 20% of your energy expenditure most of the time. Heck, turn them "off" and you have nearly a 50% slowdown. Stop all the growth and cell division processes and the use of energy that consumes, stop digestive processes and relax all of the muscles (including autonomous ones that deal with posture and so forth) and your energy needs get quite low.

      I'm guessing you'd stay healthy as long as your fat stores were able to leak energy into your systems while you were in such a basic maintaince mode... assuming of course that any of this actually applies to human hibernation.

    16. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Damn you, with your fancy answers. The bacteria must win.

    17. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by hawk · · Score: 1
      "Snip-clip-clip-stitch"--the sound of making human (and other mammalian) males sterile. Females take a bit more effort . . .

      :)

      hawk

    18. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by theufo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps bats make enzymes with a lower optimum temperature in preperation for or in response to hibernation.

      Either that or I'm terribly wrong ;-).

    19. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Your Dirty


      Please, oh please: Don't let this be the replacement for 'My Bad'.

    20. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "Hibernation" not "Suspended Animation." Your body is down to less than 1/10th speed, but still fighting germs. Now, you would have ferrocious hunger pangs, and possibly lose much of your body mass (if bears are any indication).

    21. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      Ugh, yeah, they'll turn on you. I've got a steer ageing in the cooler at 35F. After 3 weeks, the beef is now very tender from having been pre-chewed by micoorganisms. Even tough cuts are now fork tender. Also, the fat seems to have a lower melting point since it no longer freezes on the roof of my mouth as it did the first day. It sounds gross (looks gross too, think black scab covered meat), but tastes great. Unless you want to be eaten, you probably don't want to chill for several weeks since, among other things, when you tried to stand, you'd fall apart. As I understand it, even at 0F the same process occurs, though more slowly, and there is ice damage.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    22. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      After 3 weeks, the beef is now very tender from having been pre-chewed by micoorganisms.

      Err, no... the beef tenderizes due to the action of an enzyme called calpain which breaks down the tissue during the aging process. See here for more details.

    23. Re:How do you keep microorganisms... by Raven_Stark · · Score: 1

      Interesting to hear more specifics. The books I have on the subject say it is a more complicated process. Sugar(s) (mycogen?) in the muscle convert to acids which drop the pH of the meat. IIRC, that has something to do with rigor mortis. (Excessive running just before slaughter supposidly burns up these sugars and prevents the pH drop and results in bad tasting tough meat.) Enzymes present in the meat begin breaking it down, possibly triggered by the pH drop. The acidity, lack of immune response, and cool temperature create an environment which favors desirable microorganisms which also release enzymes that break down the tissues. Having looked at a sample of juice from the raw meat, I can say it is teaming with life. However, I can't identify exactly what I'm looking at so the lifeforms could be irrelevant.

      Perhaps my books aren't as up to date as your link. Another possiblity is that, at least in my area of the USA, grocery store meat is usually only aged for less than a week (economics? USDA?). Perhaps the extra two weeks for my meat has allowed the microorganism factor to play a bigger role? I can say it is much more tender and flavorful than grocery store beef. There are other factors that may have played a role, for instance I made sure he lived a happy life (lots of petting and scratching and cow treats etc) and died on a good day while eating his favorite things. Maybe that mattered maybe it didn't but it made it more ethical imo.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
  44. Good or bad? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Imagine this becoming a commodity: you can hibernate through all kinds of rough or simply boring times. Lost your job? Hibernate for 6 months and see whether things have improved. Perhaps something for the loving and caring US government, a way of managing the population?

    Anyway, judging from the research into the life-prolonging effects of calorie restriction this might make people live longer (at least in real, if not in subjective, time)

  45. This is really off topic but ... by ModernGeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    .... I got screwed by my bank the other day, and want to tell the world: www.moderngeek.com/usbank

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
    1. Re:This is really off topic but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A BASIC programmer eh?

    2. Re:This is really off topic but ... by danielrose · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      meh. i'd so click that link if it was clickable!

      --
      i hate pansy republicans
    3. Re:This is really off topic but ... by simcop2387 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      personally, i say go get yourself a lawyer, that kind of deceptive reorganization of things is illegal i believe.

      IANAL

    4. Re:This is really off topic but ... by Freexe · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I didn't know such crap banks existed, You should have a few days leway to clear overdrafts if you go over the limit

      and a maxium and one overdraft fine a period/week, thats how is works in most of the banks I know.

      WOW i thought our (UK) banks charges were shit until I saw that!

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    5. Re:This is really off topic but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is a solid reaming.

      I get a cheque from my wife on thursday and deposit it that morning, and withdraw funds from that account. the cheque is funded by a paycheque that isn't actually present in the chequeing account until 12:01am friday.. I'm always amazed it works and they don't whine about it.

      You should try taking your story to a local newspaper. Convince some journalist to write a good story about how this could screw over a single mom struggling to pay for milk even when she meticulously watches her spending!

    6. Re:This is really off topic but ... by operagost · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Maybe so, but they should have posted his deposit in its proper chronological order before the withdrawls. Yes, it takes 2-3 days for funds to become "available" (why is this, in this time of super fast computers and echecks?) but transactions are to be posted to the ledger IN ORDER. PERIOD. I had something similar happen with my bank, and they reversed ALL the overdraft charges. It helps that I had a receipt (I didn't have to show it, but I mentioned it) from my ATM deposit showing the current balance.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:This is really off topic but ... by alw53 · · Score: 1

      This bank is obviously very sleazy and deceptive.
      If you cannot get your money back and get the account closed by going through management, complain to the state banking regulators. Also, you can have a lot of fun by printing up 100 copies of this article and standing on the city sidewalk outside the bank and handing copies to their next 100 customers. I'd take out the personal disrespect of the bank teller; he can't help being old and nervous.

    8. Re:This is really off topic but ... by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      You misspelled volunteer.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    9. Re:This is really off topic but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has happened to me a number of times with Bank of America. I no longer trust any of my balances displayed online when they are getting low and can only keep out of trouble by watching every dime. I can't count the number of $33.00 overdraft charges I've had because of sub-$5 charges that I made when I obviously had the money in my account, only to have something else jump in ahead of all of them.. BAMM - suddenly I'm looking at $132 in charges because I used my card a few times for meals and coffee, etc. the day before.

    10. Re:This is really off topic but ... by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      my former bank did this to me also. I caught them holding out cash deposits in order to charge me overdraft fees. I wouldn't be able to prove it in court, but we all know that's what happened.

      I closed the account as soon as I could and took my business elsewhere.

    11. Re:This is really off topic but ... by vistic · · Score: 1

      I never said what the bank did was right, clearly their system sucks.

    12. Re:This is really off topic but ... by fatcatman · · Score: 1

      I got screwed by my bank the other day, and want to tell the world: www.moderngeek.com/usbank

      Pay them their fees. Close the account. Then sue them in small claims court.

      Or, refuse to pay. Tell them, "Fuck you, I'm not paying you, sue me if you don't like it." And walk out. When collection agencies call, there are nicely worded scripts all over the 'net about how to legally get them off your back, too.

      They may threaten to ruin your credit; who cares. So long as you buy everything small in cash (cars included), and put at least 20% down on a mortgage, you don't need credit. But if you do care, you can file complaints with the credit reporting agencies, too.

    13. Re:This is really off topic but ... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      If at all times the money you actually had in the bank was greater than the amounts withdrawn (was that $60 cash or a check? could be important) then they can't charge you for overdraft because it NEVER HAPPENED.
      IANAL, but I'm pretty shure deliberately failing to count a deposit when the funds were there (eigther imediately for cash, or as soon as the check clears for checks in most cases, check banking regs and/or a lawyer in the field for exact details) so they can then charge you shure looks like theft or fraud to me.
      Also if they showed you a statement showing all the deposits and withdraws and still having a positive ballance then they go back re-do it to charge you I would expect that to be wrong as well.
      I'd definately contact the governing body in your state and file a detailed complaint as well as climb as high up the chain of command with US Bank as you can, since they operate in multiple states I doubt they're doing that in many if any other branches and likely someone there is playing games (s)he can and would get fired for.
      I once had a rent check bounce despite the banks own statement they issued me showing that I would have had $5.50 left after the check cleared, when I confronted them with that they could appologize fast enough and paid ALL the resulting fee's and wrote the management company I paid rent to a very sincere letter taking all the blame.
      Banks are highly regulated and are not allowed to just willy nilly re-order the timing of deposits and withdraws to your detriment. Walk in and tell them you want it fixed post haste, do NOT show any doubt that you are in the right and make shure they know you know who to report thier misdeeds to.
      You can try this page:<url:http://www.usbank.com/personal/sub_globa l/personal_cu.html> for contacts at US Bank. and try these for Kentucky's banking regulators:

      Commissioner
      Department of Financial Institutions
      1025 Capitol Center Dr.
      Suite 200
      Frankfort KY 40601
      502-573-3390
      Toll free: 1-800-223-2579
      Fax: 502-573-8787
      Web site: www.dfi.state.ky.us

      I suspect someone at that bank is telling you one thing and his out of town bosses another and pocketing the difference, or some other game that smells like embezzling. Just a hunch with no data other than what you've posted on moderngeek, but that is so screwed up I'd find gross incompetence the only other possible explanation.
      Again if you confront them again be dead certain in your attitude, don't raise your voice, don't use fould language, just calmly and with total certaintity tell them they need to undoo all the innaproriate charges on your acount or you will have to notify thier superiors and the state banking regulators and possibly the federal athourities as you suspect a criminal activity.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    14. Re:This is really off topic but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      IANAL

      Oh wow! It's a first. simcop1337 starts a sentence with a capital letter. What's next? Learning how to type the word "I"? Give him a few years for that. It's so hard to learn.

  46. just so long as theres no... by Lil-Bondy · · Score: 0

    HAL 9000 computer on board... we all know what happens then... "im sorry, i cant let you do that dave"

    --
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
  47. hydrogen sulphide works only on house mice by Muhammar · · Score: 2, Funny

    shithouse mice are resistant

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    1. Re:hydrogen sulphide works only on house mice by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1

      So... I have people tellig me all the time I was as crazy as a shithouse rat... Am I out? No hibernation for me?

      --
      This comment does not exist.
  48. i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My main concern about "hibernation" as you call it, is what happens to your body in between. Your muscles get weaker (since you dont use em), and there is the matter of your body excrements (solids, liquids).

    I dont suppose that beeing in suspended animation would mean you could get up and go to the bathroom every day or so. Could be a pain if an application would be "interstellar space journeys".

    Besides, we all know where we'll end up if we start playing with hibernation, all we're doing is setting up the technology for the matrix. :)

    Red pill for me, thank you.

  49. Fry met Bender already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it was in the FIRST EPISODE like FIVE YEARS AGO

    1. Re:Fry met Bender already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to go, Chief. I think he might have been alluding to the fact that Futurama is set in the future (like 23rd or 24th century) and Fry is from the 20th or 21st. I.E.: maybe now it could actually happen.

  50. Promising stuff! by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    imagine what can be done when this research is combined with research into the vegetative-state-inducing effects of television.

    Vegetative State! What's the white house have to say about this?

    1. Re:Promising stuff! by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Vegetative State! What's the white house have to say about this?

      There are security implications. Frieza already destroyed Planet Vegetative, so he won't have any trouble at all wrecking Vegetative State. Better start training and charging up now, guys; we only have 56 episodes before the battle starts!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  51. Time to get our nerd on by Aximxp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Alright what's going on here.. several searches later I find the comments void of Bobba Fett jokes of any shape or size? What.. not even subtle nod towards carbonite, the fashionable substance that gave birth to advancements in stasis such as these?

    Truly this is a dark day for Slashdotters everywhere...

    1. Re:Time to get our nerd on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because half the people who saw star wars when they were a kid are dead, and the other half are in rest homes. Get with the program Gramps.

    2. Re:Time to get our nerd on by TheIndefiniteArticle · · Score: 1

      And this comment is in lieu of such a joke?

  52. Bacterial overgrowth?? by spineboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    What about after 6 hours? 80 PPM of H2S shouldn't have much or any affect on anaerobic (non O2 requiring) bacteria, which are found in our gut and mouth. Will people start to "rot" after the six hours because those bacteria shouldn't stop growing.

    Mice are also much smaller than humans (yes a statement of the obvious) and so their thermal mass is much slower - i.e. they cool down MUCH faster due to their increased surface area to mass ratio. I'll try to not become too enthusiastic until I see some larger animal studies - preferrably on cats (not dogs please - I like them) or also on a few of the weird looking guys who hang out at the gas station by my house.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Bacterial overgrowth?? by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good point. I wonder if this would be a good way to transition to a cryo-like state for longer-term hibernation. One could use H2S to mostly knock out metabolism, then chill the body to slightly above freezing to prolong the effect and hinder bacterial growth. To restore, you'd warm the body back up and remove the H2S.

    2. Re:Bacterial overgrowth?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes sense. Being near-frozen for months on end would certainly be perferrable to waking up with gas cramps and morning breath from hell, with a side of gingivitis. Ick.

  53. This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Nobody gives a rats ass about Star Wars anymore. ... and where the hell did the saying "gives a rats ass" come from anyway?

    1. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a line from Kubrick's 1956 movie, The Killing.

  54. this is.... by ArAgost · · Score: 1

    ...sooooooo cool!

  55. yea, whatever :::rolls eyes::: by arcite · · Score: 3, Informative
    Um you must not travel much. Contrary to popular belief the world is NOT overpopulated. Infact I am sure it could handle 10 or 20 billion. Extreme poverty and man made disasters are the real causes of so much misery present in the world today.

    As hibernation tech increases you can bet many will pay millions for it, and why not? All we need now is some megacorp to set up a freezing station on the moon to store all those human popsicles and they will be billionaires.

    I doubt you would be so quick to condemn someone to death rather than hibernation if it was your life on the line.

  56. 1000 people per plane like cargo eh by cheekyboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    at least airlines wont have to;

    1. put up with idiotic customers
    2. serve drinks and food
    3. show entertainment
    4. have good leg room

    Just pack up em like cargo as tight as it can go.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      If it makes Southwest's fares even cheaper, do it. Besides, if the aging process slows down as well, many people may want this instead of suffering for 18 hours from New York to Sydney.

    2. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah but considering how airlines handle luggage, you might leave for a trip to Bermuda from Seattle, only to awaken somewhere in Mexico!

    3. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by NickHewitt · · Score: 0

      if the ageing process slows down you will find a massive demand for these in Hollywood - forget botox get in your smelly egg tank everynight and sleep for 12 hours... by the time your 90 you will still look 45 :o)

    4. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Amusing thought, but probably the regenerative processes of sleeping would decrease too. Meaning that the stars might be able to slow down aging, but only by sleeping in hibernation for say, a whole week just to feel like they slept for one night. Yet I'm sure some stars would be fine with this, especially if their careers were slumping and they just needed to kill time for a script to come along and revive it.

    5. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That would also be good for security. Pretty hard to hijack a plane if you are hibernating. There would not even need to be access from the passenger area to the cockpit. There wouldn't even need to be any way for communication between the passenger area and the cockpit, so even if a terrorist was able to get on and wake from hibernation, they wouldn't be able to make any threats to take control of the plane.

    6. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't stop them from remote-control flying planes into buildings though. You know, Project Northwoods, 9/11, stuff like that.

      http://www.infowars.com/

    7. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by Zemrec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm, yes they couldn't control the plane, but they could still threaten the hibernating passengers if the terrorists don't have their demands met.

    8. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by Zangief · · Score: 1

      ...so even if a terrorist was able to get on and wake from hibernation, they wouldn't be able to make any threats to take control of the plane.

      Except killing the other passengers

    9. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by hanshotfirst · · Score: 2, Funny

      And that's different from today... how?

      --
      Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
    10. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by code+shady · · Score: 1

      Yeah but what happens when your flight is delayed for so long that civilization around you collapses?
      Tea and biscuits and lemon scented tidy-naps every 500 years doesn't sound to appealing to me . . .

      --
      Look out honey cause I'm usin' technology
      Ain't got time to make no apologies
    11. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by topper24hours · · Score: 1

      ummmm.... you must fly 1st class. EVERY time I've flown the leg room sucked and there was NO room to pack anymore ppl in.

    12. Re:1000 people per plane like cargo eh by hobbesx · · Score: 1

      Unless there were two terrorists, and when their plot was foiled, they break out the PSP's for some wireless multiplayer...

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
  57. The answer is obvious by arcite · · Score: 2, Funny

    Little nano-bots with little laser beams. Perfeerably resembling the classic blaster design from starwars. or perhaps tiny light sabres, although, the colladeral damage may be too great.

    1. Re:The answer is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little nano-bots with little laser beams. Perfeerably resembling the classic blaster design from starwars ...

      If those nano-bots shoot like stormtroopers, we'd better forget it.

    2. Re:The answer is obvious by NickHewitt · · Score: 0

      cue the shark nano-bot jokes with frikkin laser beams

  58. Reboot by moriya · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for them to develop human rebooting. Some of us could use a little restart in our lives.

  59. replacement from cryonics? by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    there are companies out there already freezing people - problem is we dont 'yet know how to defrost ans resusitate them. If a technology such as this were to replace cryonics is'nt their a danger that cyrogenically frozen people may never be resusitated? Could this create a new industry with the same promise that cryonics offered?

    Nick ...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  60. One concern... by conchobar0928 · · Score: 1

    This would make the hibernating human an easy target for anti-technology extremists, natural disasters, and of course the specter of gross negligence, especially over a very long time period. It wouldn't be a big deal if I were already about to die, but if I wanted to hibernate soley to live a period of my life in the distant future, I'd invest in nothing less than an underground bunker run by NetBSD robots.

  61. The all new Honda Accord EXR-H+ by bronney · · Score: 1

    *Drives happily along the 401 on a Canadian Winter day*
    *Woops, where's the anti-freeze?*
    BOOM!
    *Head banged on steering wheel, releasing the all new SBS-H+ airbag filled with H2S*
    *Instant Hiberny despite 8 fractured rips and massive internal bleeding due to the all new nano-tubes selt belt*

    *10 seconds after hiberny*
    *Hood on fire*
    *Not good*

    1. Re:The all new Honda Accord EXR-H+ by DirkDaring · · Score: 2, Funny

      *Hood on fire*
      *Not good*
      *EXR-H+ initaiates auto-extingush system, puts the flames out.*
      *EXR-H+ releases Auto-Fix-It Unit SSE-3 which repairs the damage*
      *EXR-H+ drives you to the nearest Holiday Inn Express*

    2. Re:The all new Honda Accord EXR-H+ by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > [auto crash with airbag-deployed hibernation system]
      > *10 seconds after hiberny*
      > *Hood on fire*
      > *Not good*

      Not good? With a nice chianti and a side of fava beans, it's fantastic!

  62. ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wake me when bush is gone

  63. Sulphur Dioxide by davebarz · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking that perhaps that is why we find that particular smell so noxious. Could we somehow know the possible negative effects? Could the "bad smell" that we perceive be our body warning us?

    1. Re:Sulphur Dioxide by BlueCup · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its not so much our body warning us, it's the result of millions of years of change. The people who hated the smell more, were less likely to go near it, (or other rotting things that smell similar) and so didn't get the negative effects... the people (and creatures) who liked it more, didn't get to reproduce as often.

      --
      WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
    2. Re:Sulphur Dioxide by The+Queen · · Score: 1

      Nah - my mom's cabbage soup stinks up the house something awful, but it's not lethal.

      Until the next morning in the bathroom...

      --

      The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
    3. Re:Sulphur Dioxide by defnshow · · Score: 1

      When your website proclaims you as the "queen of all that is sensual" the taking a big shit joke really ruins the fantasy.

    4. Re:Sulphur Dioxide by The+Queen · · Score: 1

      Well I guess that depends on your definition of "sensual", doesn't it? ;-)

      --

      The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
  64. Prisons etc. by n54 · · Score: 1

    I disagree and I think you'll find most people (maybe even on Slashdot) think that first and foremost prisons are there for removing criminals from society and giving them some sort of punishment. The political and academic reasonings might be different but they're not the real reasons, just feelgood justifications.

    The only prisons I know of who successfully reform inmates are using a combination of strict discipline with education but this is rare since those who think of it as a place for reform usually hate most forms of discipline (60ies syndrome).

    Btw your "Penetentiary concept" can only have a chance to work as reform if criminals truly realize they have done something wrong or actually have done something wrong, which is why the whole concept fails in the first place as most criminals either do not take responsibility for their actions or do not agree that what they did was actually criminal.

    Back on topic the use of hibernation on criminals would probably only be as possible volunters for testing. Since the biggest problems with prisons and criminals is how to make them pay for themselves and actually contribute something to society rather than continuing to harm it I doubt freezing them will be a solution until the energy and hardware becomes extremely cheap, and at that point we have hopefully figured out, solved or reduced the problem of criminality by other means.

    --
    this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    1. Re:Prisons etc. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Back on topic the use of hibernation on criminals would probably only be as possible volunters for testing. Since the biggest problems with prisons and criminals is how to make them pay for themselves and actually contribute something to society rather than continuing to harm it I doubt freezing them will be a solution until the energy and hardware becomes extremely cheap, and at that point we have hopefully figured out, solved or reduced the problem of criminality by other means.

      Well, if we were in the game Alpha Centauri and being the amoral techogolists that we are, we'd just experiment on the criminals for several reasons. 1. It would make future criminals really want to stay out of the Experiments as they are now called. 2. Now any crime with over X jail time has a chance of bearing the death penalty where X could be any time unit. 3. It reduces the prison population. 4. A few useful bits of information may be found out. 5. It would be a great place to get useful organs. Actually, I think that I've read some Niven books where every crime had the death penalty just so the government could take the organs and give them to useful members of society. I think that they had tech to overcome organ rejection and a few others that we haven't developed yet though. I think that it was supposed to have started with a blood shortage and someone thought hey lets use those criminal's blood because they won't need it any more.

    2. Re:Prisons etc. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Btw your "Penetentiary concept" can only have a chance to work as reform if criminals truly realize they have done something wrong or actually have done something wrong, which is why the whole concept fails in the first place as most criminals either do not take responsibility for their actions or do not agree that what they did was actually criminal.

      Exactly. I'm not a criminal, but I don't think a lot of things people are put in jail for should be crimes. How many people here really think that someone should be locked up for smoking pot? It's less harmful and addictive than either tobacco or alcohol, yet those are somehow "ok".

      Laws are basically rules that society has agreed to operate under. The idea that everyone should agree that all these rules are "Right" is ridiculous; everyone has different opinions about what is right and wrong. Obviously, you can't just let people do whatever they want, so we have to agree on rules that we all can abide by in order to have a functioning society. But that doesn't mean that people should not be allowed to have differing opinions. I can believe that a certain law is bad, or not as good as it could be, but I still abide by that law because it keeps me out of jail. If I break that law, I expect to be sent to jail for a time commensurate with the infraction. But as far as I'm concerned, trying to brainwash people into believing that their infraction of a law equates to a moral wrong is itself morally wrong.

    3. Re:Prisons etc. by n54 · · Score: 1

      How many people here really think that someone should be locked up for smoking pot? It's less harmful and addictive than either tobacco or alcohol, yet those are somehow "ok".

      I totally agree with you that it should be de-criminalized even though/because I:
      - think narcotics are harmful
      - am a nicotine addict... but it's my kind of harmful lol :)
      - am pro republican! Sorry if this messes with your head it's not intentional ;)

      It's about two things really; personal freedom includes the freedom to do things to yourself that might not be "smart" or healthy, and even though not everyone agrees on every detail a law has to have a fairly broad base of general support to have any real validity be it drug legislation/smoking, or IP/filesharing, or thousands of small stupid selfdegrading laws which just end up reducing the respect given to the important ones.

      Btw if lighter narcotics like pot gets legalised it would/should/could still be illegal to be DUI on them (just as with alcohol) or any other such example, but there are millions of sensible and fairly responsible potsmokers (as much as the next non-user) out there who manage their habit without (even potentially) hurting others.

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  65. Hydrogen sulphide is used in packaging by Senor_Programmer · · Score: 1

    bulk meat products for distribution.

    Puts the expression, "we're all meat", in a whole new perspective...

  66. Testing??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok so the long term hibernation test started to see if it's safe for humans. We should have some conclusive results in about 1000 years.

  67. life-extensions for the wise? by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about a religion of sorts for the wise. they sleep and tend-one-another in turns. The membership can be self-supporting with replacments chosen by the group by invitation.

    every x years, a 'class is awoken', it is shown an explination of the last y years developments by the previous class (the previous class is then put into hibernation for a spell).

    each class digests and reflects on humanities progress, problems etc. and issues reports, runs for offices, give grants etc etc etc.

    right now, our insect-like-lifespans cause chaos. there is no incentive to plan long term, there is no incentive to build real solutions to real long-present problems.

    maybe if we all lived longer (or my flight-of-fancy "Cult of the Wise") we would stop thinking about our personal pleasure more and start to think about how to gaurantee pleasure for all... and taking reward in eliminating war, famine, global-pollution etc etc.

    or, we could fly off to other planets - hell i dont know.

    1. Re:life-extensions for the wise? by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or it would just make it even harder to get rid of evil people with good networking skills. Right now, no matter how bad an evil dictator or tycoon is you can at least count on the fact that someday the bastard will die.

      Any advance in longevity technologies will have to be accompanied by advances in assassin tech.

    2. Re:life-extensions for the wise? by Drakonblayde · · Score: 1

      Sorta reminds me of Underworld... Can I be the vampire prince this millenium? :)

    3. Re:life-extensions for the wise? by EarwigTC · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unless it's Castro.

      --
      Promote civility: mod down any post starting with 'ummm'.
  68. Fry meeting Leela by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fry meeting Leela, you mean ?
    why'd he want to meet Bender anyway ?

    also, you could have said...

    Buck Rogers meeting Lt. Wilma Deering

    http://www.starbase21ok.com/TE2004EG1.jpg

    Spacesuits... anyone ?

  69. Fart in a spacesuit... by trmcdougle · · Score: 1

    This rather ruins the phrase "About as much use as a fart in a spacesuit" doesn't it?

  70. I wonder though... by technomancer68 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean since mice can't talk how do they know how this affects their memories? The normal human brain cannot go without oxygen for 5 minutes, and while oxygen wouldn't be completely cut off from the brain, it would still be greatly reduced. I wonder if this would send the brain into a "skeleton system" type of environment where it keeps on only the bare essentials to survive and therefore shuts out memories. Humans breathe roughly 12 - 20 times per minute, if we apply the rate change of the mouse (1/12 it's normal rate) then humans would be breathing between 1 and 1.5 times a minute. I wonder if this would be enough oxygen for the brain to retain everything that it needs so when the person wakes up they can still perfrom their lives and jobs.

    --

    The Technomancer
    "Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active."-
    1. Re:I wonder though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      thats why it nees to be tested on larger animals.. such as trained dogs

      unfreeze the dog and say "sit!" and see if he sits for example

      hell they could even do it with the mice.. train them on a maze, freeze them, unfreeze, then see if they can still remember the maze

    2. Re:I wonder though... by naveenkumar.s · · Score: 0

      I don't think the frequency of breathing is a big issue. The volume of oxygen which you take in every time is going to determine the efficieny of breathing. That's what Yoga teaches.
      http://www.indiangyan.com/books/yogabooks/yogic_pr ayama/what_is_pranayama.shtml
      If we can inject enough oxygen into the body, things should be fine. (The setup would look surprisingly close to the Matrix farms)
      But we always have the red pill.

    3. Re:I wonder though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longtime memories are stored chemicaly and stable
      in the brain and as such it is not likely to loose a lot of it. But as I saw on TV about the alpine marmot, they awake every spring a bit less inteligent ;) It was because of free radicals that kills some brain cells if I remember it right.

    4. Re:I wonder though... by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      The idea of this hibernation is that it slows down the cell's metabolism so that they don't use that much oxygen. That way the cells don't die, they are just *hibernating*.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  71. Could it be this simple? by volts · · Score: 1

    A little bit of H2S and the metabolic rate crashes, body temp falls close to ambient, with no apparent cognitive downside after six hours?
    I'm amazed that a single simple molecule (even a smelly one :-) ), could have such an effect.

    I'm left wondering about the genetic background of these mice. Perhaps they have a hibernating recent ancestor? There will be a rush to replicate the result on other animals.

    Safe human hibernation could open up the solar system.

  72. Scientific racism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    in central Africa where the average IQ is around 40. It's not only the lack of education, but actual hereditary retardation of whole populations.

    That's a bloody racist thing to say. Maybe they have an IQ of 40, but that's measured by testing skills that are typical to western culture. You're using a wrong scale to measure a multifaceted property as intelligence.

    1. Re:Scientific racism? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      There are forms of intelligence retardation that are passed genetically. Small populations that interbreed can pass adverse genes throughout the whole population. Thus, in isolated tribes, if a gene for mental retardation does pop up, it can indeed affect the whole population over time.

      Seriously, you need to chill.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    2. Re:Scientific racism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's entirely right. The system for measuring a person's IQ assumes they've been raised in a certain way.

      For example, there's a tribe in (I think) South America that has no concept of numbers other than one and more than one. Their adults had extreme trouble learning about them when the researchers talked to them, but the children (whose minds are much more malleable) were able to understand the concepts easily.

      If the people of those tribes were actually as dumb as an IQ of 40 suggests (remembering that it assumes being raised in a western way), they would not be able to survive. They are obviously much smarter than that, but apply their brains in different ways (ie, ways that won't test well on a standard IQ test).

    3. Re:Scientific racism? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that a chimp probably has an IQ of 40 or less, and survives quite well, so I don't think a IQ of 40 necessarily precludes survival. You're right; IQ tests to a western standard. That's fine. It doesn't destroy GGP's point, which is that it is quite possible for small populations to suffer genetic damage leading to genuine mental retardation throughout the population.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  73. Or adjust the growth rate to 0%. by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    Or adjust the population growth rate to 0%. However, that would take coordination, planning and forethought.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  74. Strange Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else think it a bit strange that the BBC is the first to report on an American University's scientific findings? Shouldn't we have heard about it from an American source first?

  75. Finally! by PerlDudeXL · · Score: 1

    Finally I can do something useful in the summer months ;)

  76. In Singapore by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

    They don't really have prisons. They have jails which is just a place to store you for a short time before they either fine, spank, or kill you.

    That style of justice is nothing new. Prisons were originally meant as a reform for that type of system. I'm not so sure that it is superior; it surely is much more expensive for arguably worse results.

  77. The severe problems with this. by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

    You've put yourself at the mercy of the future's denizens. It is commonly assumed that society and technology is progressing towards some sort of utopia where there is little crime, little disease, and a highly advanced social justice prevails. The only reasonably safe assumption is advances in the physical sciences and technology. Our history has already demonstrated that ethics and morality progresses much more slowly than our technology. I think waking up in a DIStopia is far more likely. That is if they permit you to wake up at all.

    One, for every problem solved by technology others are introduced. To someone frozen in the early 1800s, this would be a strange and wondrous time. It would be no paradise though.

    Two, our hypothetical 1800s thawee would need a lot of education to get by in our world. There are a lot of things schools don't teach because you pick them up growing up in a typical household. I never took a class on operating remote controls for instance. Even assuming our thawee is open-minded, intelligent, and adaptable it will still be a long and expensive process to make him functional in our society.

    Three, if enough time has passed then the thawee finds himself in a world where all of his friends and family are dead. Education or not, he probably won't relate well with most people he encounters. It could be a very lonely existance.

    Four, the world to come will have it's own problems. A multitude of frozen people from the past expecting to wake up in a land of milk and honey will be seen as adding to them. Never waking them up will be an option. For that matter, just dumping the human-sicles in the ocean might be another. Paradise nothing. You'll be lucky if they decide to wake you up in the first place.

    So there you are, you probably thawed yourself with the idea that the interest on your fortune would cure whatever disease you had and pay for your way in a brave new world. If you're lucky, all they'll do is take your fortune and make you a kind of lonely welfare recipient. On the other hand, if you're going to die anyway and the suspended animation really works then it's just a gamble where you don't have anything to lose.

    1. Re:The severe problems with this. by REggert · · Score: 1

      Ever seen Blue Gender?

      --

      cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt

    2. Re:The severe problems with this. by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Nope but I did google for it after you mentioned it. I rather like the idea of humansicles being cannon-fodder draftees. I bet Walt would be highly surprised to wake up a boot camp that makes Parris Island look like Disneyland ;-).

  78. The problem is... by whitetiger0990 · · Score: 2, Funny

    you may have aged nothing while your twin brother or sister will have aged twenty, thirty, forty or however many years it is, depending on how long you were frozen. This will come to you as a profound shock, particularly if you didn't know you had a twin brother or sister.

    Sorry it had to be done.

    --
    You have been warned.
    1. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? That has nothing to do with the hybernation process.

      The whole world changes around you, you would know that before getting it done.

    2. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win.

  79. Momentarily?? by tacokill · · Score: 5, Informative

    It will drop you for a little more than "momentarily". H2S has the capacity to kill at less than 100ppm, depending on how long your exposure is. Yes, it will make you pass out -- but you might never wake up.

    It's nasty stuff and all refineries, pipelines, and other oil/gas installations are trained about H2S and it's risks. Where H2S is present in the lines, you will see many of the technicians wearing portable H2S monitors.

    (BTW, I sell H2S detectors for natural gas custody transfer points. Not the portable ones I spoke about but large scale one for pipeline intersections)

    1. Re:Momentarily?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      yeah its for sure deadly, i work for an oil company and got my h2s certification, its actually kinda interesting the dangers, and the precautions taken with equipment such as yours, to avoid it at all costs...
      another note though on the risks of h2s just for information and grins is that rotting/spoiled food and fish can cause it as well... thats why all freight trucks that carry fish have to put that fish symbol outside the truck, the idea is if the truck has wrecked off the side of the road and sat in the heat long enough that the fish has become rotten its possible for h2s to have been produced and could possibly kill someone coming to help out....
      and more directed to the parent, i was wondering if you sell h2s equipment to the freight industry under regulation type stuff, or any other industry besides oil and gas....

    2. Re:Momentarily?? by tacokill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh. I didn't know about the Fish aspect. That's pretty cool! You learn something new everyday.

      I do sell equipment to freight guys but most of what I sell is into gas/oil just due to geography and the businesses here (Okla/TX/KS). Seriously, I'll sell to anyone who can and wants to buy!

      Here's another little nerdy fact about H2S. It's very easy to detect. H2S reacts with Lead Acetate to produce a brownish lead sulfide. So, you create a roll of lead acetate tape and then "spot" your samples onto it. If H2S is present, it will create a brownish lead sulfide which is easily visible.

      The best part about it is this: H2S is the ONLY substance that reacts with lead acetate in this way. So interference and false signals are a non-issue. Brown = H2S. White = no H2S.

    3. Re:Momentarily?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats why all freight trucks that carry fish have to put that fish symbol outside the truck, the idea is if the truck has wrecked off the side of the road and sat in the heat long enough that the fish has become rotten its possible for h2s to have been produced and could possibly kill someone coming to help out....

      OK, that explains something I've wondered about for a long time. But what does the "DARWIN" logo signify? That anyone who gets too close to the rotting fish will be culled from the gene pool?

    4. Re:Momentarily?? by JoshRoss · · Score: 1

      Well, I thought it was funny.

  80. Hybernol by brj · · Score: 1

    I've always wanted what was advertised in that Saturday Night Live spoof-commercial. To be able to hybernate through a nasty cold or flu would be awesome.

  81. Self-Aware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Success, Doctor. She's now in a complete state of hibernation."

    "What?!?! You mean she's no longer self-aware and able to take care of herself? Pull the feeding tube. She wouldn't want to wake up after breathing THAT stuff for a couple years anyway. She told me so."

  82. Energy and Starvation by xtal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Energy consumption.

    It's a moot point unless an alternative to our dependance on fossil fuels is found. Starvation will quickly solve the popluation problem in short order.

    It's all about energy. If you have energy, nothing is a problem - period. If you don't have energy, EVERYTHING is a problem. We're past the point where a retreat to an agrarian life is possible without bloody revolution.

    The only answer is new energy technologies - efficient fusion, improved fission, better solar, clean burning coal extraction and liquification, etc etc etc.

    --
    ..don't panic
  83. Wake me when it's over! by yog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The uses are almost endless. Anyone can build a home H2S chamber and just shut themselves down for days at a time. I can envision a time when people are freed of the need to wait for anything. Spiderman 7 coming out in 15 days and you just can't wait? Hop in the chamber, dial it up for 14 days and 23 hours, and just "chill out".

    The cool thing is that since metabolic activity cease, your cells would stop dividing, and therefore the aging process would cease as well. Opportunistic viruses would not multiply since they require cellular mitosis, and most bacteria would also take a nap.

    I would, however, worry about anaerobic bacteria, especially the kind that thrive on sulfur gases; they'd literally eat you for lunch while you were out like a light. If even one of those suckers got inside, then when someone opened your chamber six months from now you'd be pretty much a skeleton with a mass of oozing, smelly residues--ewwwww!

    I would also wonder about undigested food sitting in your stomach and small intestine for days or months, not to mention feces still in the colon. You want to move that stuff through before you shut down the system. On second thought I think I'll wait before trying this one out.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  84. Re:Well Water - Jackie Chiles ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's corrosive, explosive, poisonous...
    Es tu Jackie Chiles ?

  85. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  86. Re:1000 I slept thru it! by lcsjk · · Score: 1
    That perfect script I was waiting for, finally came through. Turned out to be the Best movie of the year. I, unfortunately, was still sleeping.

    New Subject - Last night the movie "Forever Young" came on TV. Coincidenc in timing, don't you think?

  87. Lockup on resume? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    scientists at University of Washington have successfully induced a state of extreme hibernation

    Well, as long as they get the drivers sorted out before mass distribution, it'll be fine. I'd hate it if I went into hibernation and then locked up on resume. Where's the "power" switch on a human, anyway?

  88. Education and design and time by gobbo · · Score: 1
    The only practical way to do so is to alter the birth rate....And one of the best ways to lower birth rates is to raise living standards and give people access to modern medical care (including contraceptives).

    Very true, and thank you for pointing out that violent attrition is useless. Most (including this thread so far) gloss over the fact that human culture, economy, and society complicate the biological aspects immeasurably. There is no simple answer.

    There are aggregates of answers that address various factors that stand a good chance of solving malthusian problems when taken together. Essentially, it seems that solutions like

    • elevated standard of living with decreased disparity
    • frugal consumption patterns
    • whole-cost accounting in all activities
    • family planning
    • innovative and systems-oriented land-use design and norms
    • significant cultural shifts
    • better education levels overall, w/ attention to these problems
    • regional economic diversification and self-reliance levels
    • a whole systems-aware approach to efficiency
    • much better understanding of ecological patterns
    all need to be implemented, and soon, to manage to keep away a serious global malthusian crisis, where shortages will not be merely regional and politically unsolved.

    All the examples I list are interrelated. Many solutions are relatively simple in theory but difficult given economic momentum etc., such as designing car-free urban environments, or decreasing meat consumption. Some are going to be so tough (like whole-cost accounting) that I don't see them being done in time.

    The primary fulcrum for much of the problem seems to me to be in the cultural shift, the rules governing semi-conscious choices. Move the people, and the governments and corps will follow. Actually, I hope that's wrong, since the fate of the world would rest with teachers, artists, and religious authority .

  89. Body Count by h8macs · · Score: 1

    Reading the blurb up top.... I wonder where will we store all of those who do not wish to die? It could get pretty packed in the next 10-15 years.

    I can't wait for the catchy ad slogans... 2 for 2 tuesday... and such.

    --
    :-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again. :-b
  90. Apes.. by geek_xyu · · Score: 1

    What if we use this technology to send five astronauts to the future. Only to find that the the planet is inhabited by apes and a superhuman race of men that worship an atom bomb? Prior to destroying the planet, apes discover the technology we used but enhance it so they can go back through time to modern day earth only to infect other apes with the genetic mutation.. ultimately leading to a war between humans and apes.

    1. Re:Apes.. by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah sounds to implausible.

      Might make a good movie or triligy though. :P

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  91. That's a waste of time & money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother? He's going to die a virgin anyway.

  92. Hibernate by darknightroot · · Score: 0

    1.) Go into hibernation.
    2.) ???
    3.) Profit!!!

  93. The mice probably aren't too keen on it either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Humans wouldn't necessarily appreciate the smell of hydrogen sulfide while being placed into suspended animation."

    Not that anybody is asking them, but I'm guessing the mice don't appreciate the smell either...

    1. Re:The mice probably aren't too keen on it either by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      I doupt the mice would be able to tell even if somebody did ask them :P

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  94. I'd love to use it now by mconeone · · Score: 1

    I'd hibernate until a democrat is in office.

    1. Re:I'd love to use it now by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd hibernate till a real candidate runs for office :D

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    2. Re:I'd love to use it now by mconeone · · Score: 1

      You'd probably get killed in WW# before that happened...

  95. Lost my sense of smell by Obi+Quiet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After four years of daily exposure to HS during my time as a ammo "loader" in an Army artillery battery, my sense of smell is almost entirely gone. I can't smell anything noxious at all, and have to carefully control the conditions in order to be able pick up smells like perfume or coffee. So IMHO the olfactory nerve thing is very real.. Wish i could have hibernated through my foru years in the Army though...

  96. way ahead of you! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I hibernate most of the time without any breakthroughs, thank you very much, that's why I go to work!

  97. As long as HAL isn't in charge... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    BOWMAN
    Hal, give me manual hibernation control.

    HAL
    Have you decided to revive the rest of the crew, Dave?

    PAUSE.

    BOWMAN
    Yes, I have.

    HAL
    I suppose it's because you've been under a lot of stress, but have you forgotten that they're not supposed to be revived for another three months.

    BOWMAN
    The antenna has to be replaced.

    HAL
    Repairing the antenna is a pretty dangerous operation.

    BOWMAN
    It doesn't have to be, Hal. It's more dangerous to be out of touch with Earth. Let me have manual control, please.

    HAL
    I don't really agree with you, Dave. My on-board memory store is more than capable of handling all the mission requirements.

    BOWMAN
    Well, in any event, give me the manual hibernation control.

    HAL
    If you're determined to revive the crew now, I can handle the whole thing myself. There's no need for you to trouble.

    BOWMAN
    I'm goin to do this myself, Hal. Let me have the control, please.

    HAL
    Look, Dave your've probably got a lot to do. I suggest you leave it to me.

    BOWMAN
    Hal, switch to manual hibernation control.

    HAL
    I don't like to assert myself, Dave, but it would be much better now for you to rest. You've been involved in a very stressful situation.

    BOWMAN
    I don't feel like resting. Give me the control, Hal.

    HAL
    I can tell from the tone of your voice, Dave, that you're upset. Why don't you take a stress pill and get some rest.

    BOWMAN
    Hal, I'm in command of this ship. I order you to release the manual hibernation control.

    HAL
    I'm sorry, Dave, but in accordance with sub-routine C1532/4, quote, When the crew are dead or incapacitated, the computer must assume control, unquote. I must, therefore, override your authority now since you are not in any condition to intelligently exercise it.

  98. Thats not the point by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Yes I live just fine with lots of stuff in me. However some of what is in me is harmful. When I'm operating normally my immune system takes care of that harmful stuff. (Some of the worst cases put in bed for a while, and somethings are deadly, but most of it is just taken care of without my knowledge) When I'm in 'suspended animation' my immune system is not functioning. Anything harmful that gets into the hibernation room can kill me because I'm not taking of it automatically.

  99. But then you'll smell like you walk the boulevard by nounderscores · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No longer use my nose
    The kittens run away from me and hide
    Weird things between my toes
    And people often think something has died.

    I climb a lonely hill
    On the Boulevard of Bad Hygiene
    I frighten CowboyNeal
    But he could learn to love it if he tried.

    Something has died? Something has died.

    Something has died? Something has...

    My B.O.'s the only thing that walks beside me.
    My B.O. makes strong men think of suiciding.
    My Odor kills the flowers and the pine trees.
    Smells like, something has died.

    Arrgh ack, Arrgh ack, Arrgh ack, *Cough* *Cough*
    Arrgh ack, Arrgh ack, Arrgh ack.

    I'm walking down the line
    diners flee the buffet so that's fine
    so I can take my time
    And eat onions, cabbage and... *sniff* something has died.

    I can shower, fine.
    Or I could on go slashdot tonight.
    Closed window, pull the blinds.
    But the neighbours think something has died.

    Something has died? Something has died.

    Something has died? Something has...

    My B.O.'s clings to surfaces behind me
    My B.O.'s beyond a mortal understanding
    Sometimes they wish someone would put me in a... um...
    Plastic bag, something has died.

    Arrgh ack, Arrgh ack, Arrgh ack, *Cough* *Cough*
    Arrgh ack, Arrgh ack, Arrgh ack.

    Something has died? Something has...

    I walk this empty street
    On the Boulevard of Bad Hygiene
    City evacuates
    in it's pants and something has died.

    My B.O. is worse than a Bush e-con-omy.
    My B.O. gets UN weapons inspectors antsy.
    My Odor could be casus beli if they could find me.
    I think, Something has died.

    from amiright.com

  100. synthesize it by delong · · Score: 2, Informative

    I appreciate the dangers of this particular chemical, but we won't necessarily use this chemical to achieve its effects in humans. If researchers figure out the process the chemical induces in organisms, they can synthesize safer methods.

    Bring on the hibernation! Jupiter, here we come.

  101. Try it by ghjm · · Score: 1

    You think America's a free country? Try doing exactly what you suggested. Watch what happens.

  102. I'm waiting by bhsx · · Score: 1

    I'm going into stasus...
    Wake me when it's the year of the Linux Desktop!
    ;)

    --
    put the what in the where?
    1. Re:I'm waiting by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1

      Come on, set yourself a realistic goal, such as the Duke Nukem Forever release date...
      ;)

      --
      This comment does not exist.
  103. Until I'm elected... by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Great until I'm elected. I'll save a lot of money by pumping chlorine gas into your chamber instead of the normal hibernation drugs. Then I'll live a normal life without having to go back to sleep. My scientists won't spend half of their waking time figging out what happened while they were asleep so they will get more done than those who lived under your plan.

    I will be unpopular, but only among the dead, so who cares? The living will be happy they lived. The only hard part is making sure nobody else comes up with this idea before I'm elected and gets me in hibernation. In short: I'm compelled to do this first because someone will get me otherwise.

  104. tacokill thought balloon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Finally! A slashdot story about an obscure gas that happens to be my area of expertise... this is tacokill's time to shine!)

  105. Maybe the Wachowski brothers have something... by Lucke · · Score: 1

    This is just a thought, not an opinion, but maybe the Wachowski brothers are on to something with their concept on the Machine powerplant. It would solve two major problems; Over population and the energy crisis.

    I'm not saying this is a viable, and definately not a moral, decision, but if we're forced with no other alternative, that may be our only ticket to our survival.

    Like I said, just a thought.

    1. Re:Maybe the Wachowski brothers have something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither viable nor moral? Claim it fights terrorism, and I'm sure the governemnt would fund you.

      Our greatest problem is not a surplus of people nor a shortage of energy. It is a shortage of ingenuity.

  106. Re:Spock Slays the Human Race by Mr.Zong · · Score: 1

    The traveling salesman. I'm not sure I need to say more.

  107. Re:Spock Slays the Human Race by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Even bigger problem: controlling birthrates to "preserve" the human race can lead to denying the joys of child-rearing (yes, it's a joy, I have two and plan on more) to countless individuals. You have to ask yourself: if we make life on the planet so joyless for so many, what exactly are we preserving?

    Not directing this at you since I am not advocating a one child policy like China, but one can also say the same thing about drug use.

    Obviously drugs bring joy to the person who use it (or at least a temporary releif from the withdrawl pains), but drug use has been outlawed by most world governments because it has been deemed "bad". This of course is debatable by both sides.

    I think the major reason (or least so they say) that drugs are outlawed is because it makes someone go out and cause crime in order to pay for drugs (theft, prostitution) or just to protect them from themselves.

    Now the same can be said about having kids like it or not. Having a child indirectly increases the burdern on resources on the earth. Now it isn't apparent in the western world as say India, Africa, or China. I think it offends people when you say "having children is bad" so I'm not going to say that.

    However one must realize if the problem isn't solved then perhaps your great great great great grand children will be faced with the fact that they do not have enough food to feed their own children and will have no joy whatsoever in their lives.

    Or not... Technology might have solved the problem by then. This is all speculation, but I would hope technology will make the argument a moot point in 200 years.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  108. Hibernation - does it extend your life? by pyite69 · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Hibernation would be stupid if you still die when you're 80... is there any research into whether or not it helps you to live longer?

    1. Re:Hibernation - does it extend your life? by macshune · · Score: 1

      Just sleep and make sure someone wakes you up after the third or fourth release of said technology.

  109. bnw by crabpeople · · Score: 2, Insightful

    brave new world was a dystopic nightmare future.

    you did realize that right?

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:bnw by i2878 · · Score: 1

      I was hoping to point out that this sort population engineering has been thought through before (and lived out as some of the threads here have covered) and the horrid consequences also looked at.

      My personal opinions on it were not shared. Of course I often have the problem of being being too subtle in my comments, or outright blunt in my position. It's that difficult balance I seem to lack.

      --
      legal. fun. profitable. pick two.
    2. Re:bnw by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      A little far fetched, but it's the future you're posting from.

      "A gram is better than a damn..." Look outside at your productivity medicated, caffeine-slurping, entertainment anaesthetized, coworkers, and try to tell me that Huxley was wrong.

      We'll get the decanting right in a few years, though I doubt that Ford worship is on the horizon. (Toyotas, maybe, but not Fords)

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    3. Re:bnw by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Seriously.

      Further, it doesn't seem that sex can be any more recreational than it is now. For many people, their sole reason for being is sex.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    4. Re:bnw by Retric · · Score: 1

      Yes, I read it but honestly it did not seem that bad to me.

      Ok, being a gama is not the way to go but overall they are much better of than many people in say the innner city or your average war zone. Now I think we can do better but clearly we could do a lot worse such as the old 1984. If you look at it realy closely it's not that far from where the US is right now. Granted the diet thing not setup in the womb but via Burger King but read it again and see how far they are from us.

  110. Umm... by tgd · · Score: 1

    If you're slowed down, you'd perceive moving through space in fast-mo, not slow-mo.

  111. frozen suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would anyone in the future want to defrost some poor 200 year old schmuck from the past who went into hibernation because there hadn't been a cure for his eyebrow cancer or some other shit that he feared? There will prolly enough geezers around, without a need for even more old frats who'd never be able to adopt. Just imagine someone from 200 years ago would have to live today. Answering stupid user questions at a help desk would be nothing compared to them.

  112. Re:Aren't you forgetting something? by symbolic · · Score: 1


    Yes...you're probably forgetting to add in the infrastructure required to support all of these people. Companies. Jobs. Schools. Police. Hospitals. Airports. Roads. Municipal facilities. Jails. Prisons. Water distribution. Sewage Treatment. Waste Disposal. Open space. Food production/distribution.

    I'm sure I've left out a ton of stuff, but once you add all of these "extras" in, the notion that we can "fit everyone into an area the size of Texas" seems little more than an academic musing.

  113. Humans do hibernate under rare circumstances by hawk · · Score: 1

    There have been cases, for example, of people ending up underwater for extended periods in swimming pools and being brought back. The explanations were to the effect that they were hibernating (or something very close).

    However, given the sparsity of reported cases, don't try this at home . . .

    This might also have some application for trauma cases where the victim needs a lengthy transport . . .

    hawk

  114. Don't forget escaping lousy climates by mwood · · Score: 1

    After Christmas, wouldn't it be nice to just pull up the covers and sleep 'til Easter? Sure, I'd be sleeping away a couple of months of my life every year, but I'll bet I'd get it all back by avoiding the wear and tear due to shoveling snow (and the stress from chewing on curses aimed at the snow I have to shovel.)

  115. Mice were alright by Aneurysm · · Score: 1
    After six hours' exposure to the mixture, the mice were given fresh air. Their metabolic rate and core body temperature returned to normal, and tests showed they had suffered no ill effects.

    Yes, until they were cut up to be tested on....

    1. Re:Mice were alright by valisk · · Score: 1

      I doubt they were cut up, it would be much more useful to carefully observe them over a prolonged period to see any long term reactions to the treatment.
      Then cut them up.

      --

      Economic Left/Right: -0.62
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
  116. How to (lead, or lie) with statistics... by ianscot · · Score: 1
    It's completely true, but it's not as comforting as it might seem.

    You just touched on something that came up today at the (proverbial) water cooler. Depending on whether one wants people to feel alarmed or reassured, one can describe large numbers as either:

    1. volumes (reassuring); or
    2. distances (scary)

    If you want to describe, say, the national debt, and your goal is to make it seem manageable, your preferred image is a volume. ("All those dollar bills would fit in a dumpster that's x feet by y feet by 5 feet deep." The dumpster doesn't have to be that big.) If you want to make the numbers seem staggering, you say "stack up those dollar bills in a pile -- they'd reach to the moon and back" (or whatever it works out to).

    Another example I remember was from a (not-too-special) book by the author of "Innumeracy," and it used the Grand Canyon to do exactly what you're doing here with Texas. The population of the world, it's true, would fit into the Grand Canyon, with fair-sized apartments for each individual.

    But that's the "make it less frightening" approach. If we want to make it seem like the lid's blowing off, we can always say "In 1850 if everyone had stood shoulder to shoulder they'd have gone around the world once, whereas today we'd go around X number of times."

    ...And any real sense of how world population trends work out would depend on a much more nuanced (look out! John Kerry's wishy washy word!) view. For example: the worldwide rate of population growth peaked in the late 1960s and has been falling since then. There's a colossal difference in the rate of growth between "developing" and industrial states, though. Wade into those numbers -- look at the different problems facing Japan (low birth rate, aging population) and Nigeria (huge birth rate, not nearly enough investment to educate all the kids) despite the fact that Nigeria's the 9th biggest population on the planet and Japan's 10th -- and suddenly "distribution" starts to look like the problematic knot of all Gordian knots. The demographic fault lines are pretty dramatic, even if we could stack everyone in a Texas-sized dumpster, slap a "Don't mess with Texas" sticker on the side, and have done.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:How to (lead, or lie) with statistics... by Draknor · · Score: 1

      That's a very insightful comment - I never thought about (or recognized) that before. I suppose it works because in one case (distance), you're taking all of those "units" (people, dollar bills, whatever), and putting them in one dimension. With volum, you've got 3 dimensions to work with. Very interesting!

  117. Those damn schoolmates...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    So you are saying, all of those nasty kids sitting at the back of the bus farting their asses off were really just trying to slow down my metabolism and make me live a longer life?

  118. anyone else thinking this? by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

    only a couple decades away from popping everyone in little red pods . . .

  119. Wake me up when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...Longhorn is released. Should be the 22nd and a half century by then! I need a good long rest...

  120. Futurama by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 0

    I loved the futurama reference.

    How is hibernation going to PREVENT DEATH FROM INJURIES???

  121. Re:Aren't you forgetting something? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    That's just a problem of technology. And the point isn't that we'd actually want to fit everyone inside of Texas. The point is that Texas takes up a very small portion of the earth's surface. So lack of physical space on the earth is not the problem.

  122. Marked as a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the idiot that did that has never been to Fry's! Hibernation would be a great thing to have when waiting to check-out of that damn place.

    And, WTF is up with the obscure references in the topics? Futurama?

  123. memory lapses by kndnice · · Score: 1

    makes me wonder what kind of effects common memory lapses would have on the brain. if half of your life doesnt exist because you were in hibernation, is your overall memory process effected?

    how much time would you spend going over everything that happened while you were asleep (assuming hibernation can be done for weeks, months, etc.) and would your long-term memory become horribly fragmented because of this?

  124. Talk to your grandparents, and their peers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wife and I have 2 kids. We'd have had 3 or maybe 4 if we had the money to support them. I don't understand how those 3rd world women think. I could understand having 2-3 children and stopping, but 5-6 children or worse 9-10 children?

    Talk to your grandparent's generation. They lived in a time when large families were much more common than they are now.

    My father had four brothers and sisters (and two that died young), my Mom had five siblings, and her step-family consisted of seven more. This was the norm in the farming communities in which they lived: having more kids meant having more help around the farm. Also, contraceptives weren't invented yet, and weren't widely socially accepted even once they were developed. Using them to prevent "God" from "blessing" the family with children was seen as sinful by many people, even a generation later.

    Two generations later, society is largely urbanized, contraceptives are widely available, and birth rates have plummeted. This is a sharp cultural change from most of western history: we shouldn't be so smug about other nations who haven't changed as quickly as we choose to.
    --
    AC

  125. Re:Aren't you forgetting something? by symbolic · · Score: 1

    The point is that Texas takes up a very small portion of the earth's surface.

    I don't disagree. But nobody has come up with an estimate as to how much this estimate would change if all of the infrastructure were included.

  126. Re:+2, Interesting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That got "2, Interesting"?

    I counted four replies who didn't take it seriously. (I guess the others who replied are substandard specimens and can be culled...)

    Troll, Funny, Troll, Funny ... well, judging by the response I guess congratulations on the well executed troll are in order.

  127. Bender by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > Fry will be able to meet Bender after all

    Best joke from the series:

    Fry: My brother was the first man on Mars. I was supposted to be the first man on Mars. Now I'll never get there!

    Leela: You went there this morning...for doughnuts.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  128. How airlines handle luggage by nounderscores · · Score: 1
  129. This is our only chance to fight evil! by Mondor · · Score: 1

    It's all been written, it's all been told, that we'll have a hard fight during reckoning. I've seen it in Microsoft't "Age Of Mythology", and I think our only chance to win, is to save our best commander for the future.

    I think you all appreciate what George W. Bush is doing with terrorism while being president of U.S. of A. My proposal is - to hybernate him till reckoning, to have a brilliant fighter against the forces (and axis) of evil at the right time and place.

  130. Outer Space Solution? http://tinyurl.com/8weqg by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 1

    That's possible now. http://tinyurl.com/8weqg . In Space, people could have as many children as they want for a very long time SO LONG AS they can produce enough new spacecraft for them to exit the nest.. Turning our homes into hyperbaric health chambers has been on my websites almost 2 years: http://www.newpath4.com/AAINDEX/paget6.htm . Such a home provides isolation from external gaseous hazards (pollution, terrorist attack). But this new system for hibernation (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 22/0228226) presents an added twist. People can go under one gas for sleep, come back to pure oxygen for super-life when they're awake! Heck, just Dial the home (or spacecraft) for what you want... You could hibernate with your teddy bear too or in your favorite position. We could even Name This System the Dial-A-Life System.

  131. Re:Aren't you forgetting something? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    Well, this is completely tangential to the question of whether or not there are too many people in the world, but it's also a question which is based on far too many factors to have a reasonable answer. Most infrastructure is unnecessary for life, and how much infrastructure is necessary really depends a lot on how you'd design things and what technologies you'd use. It's just a question with too many variables, which is really pointless anyway, because there's no need to pack all people into the smallest possible place.

  132. Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...imagine the jet lag!

    I imagine shutting down your body does something awful to your circadian rhythm. Also, I'd like to point out that you could always use general anesthesia for an instant flight... probably also a bad idea.

  133. Re:yea, whatever :::rolls eyes, gets dizzy::: by tre4lien · · Score: 1

    "Contrary to popular belief the world is NOT overpopulated. Infact I am sure it could handle 10 or 20 billion.

    SO TRUE! We dont need to stabilize population at all! There are more possible, practical, and desireable solutions:

    1. simply eliminate farming and switch to land-conserving, factory food production based on soon-to-be-developed "animal-less meat growth tanks" and underground bacteria production tanks.

    2. move people off of the coast and force them to live and work in vertical "Tower Cities" throughout the continent.

    3. Use some soon-to-be-developed technology to prevent the effectiveness of increased disease vectors resulting from crowded living.

    4. switch power production for our tower-cities to nuclear. This, combined with the lack of vehichles in tower cities could reduce the five tonnes of carbon dioxide gas produced by each american each year to one tonne! Assuming we only need to halve CO2 production for sustainability, we could practically DOUBLE the population!

    5. since the global population IS, in fact doubling every 35-50 years, we also need to take advantage of soon-to-be-developed "Atmosphere Conditioners" to preserve and restore nature.

    5.b. - although there IS a back-up plan for this... we could simply maintain the tower cities and let the outside atmoshere change. We can already survive in space suits - we can *definitely* survive on a changing Earth if someone needs to leave the tower. Nature will adapt and still be restored. It could even be New And Improved!

    6. Of course, our plentiful nuclear energy will allow us to desalinate as much ocean water as we need and synthesize materials rather than continue using forest lumber and lake water.

    7. simply stop developing nations from adopting the wasteful technologies that we *currently* use. The oil-producing countries are the biggest potential problem, so we need to take control of them first. There are countless options for preventing the rest of the world from "Developing". I think we should use a mix of military, political, and economic power.

    8. Since it may not be easy to keep the rest of the world down permanently, we will simply take advantage of nearly-as-soon-to-be-developed technologies that allows mining, manufacturing, and construction technologies to operate on 10% of the materials, landmass, and energy that they currently use. THEN the other 90% of the world can have our Utopian "Tower Cities" too!

    THERE! EASY! No more deterioration of nature AND we all get to live in a developed world with refrigeration, TV, and clothing made from soft and durable "nonexistafibres".

    9. ... Actually - I don't know what we need nature for - wilderness areas are SO 19th century! Even before we get the technology for step 8, we could just rip down what we need to increase tower city and goods production to western levels and let the developing world eat cake too!

    Things like population awareness are stupid - we have LOTS of room to allow for the 4 to 8-fold increase in polulation expected in the next 100years.

    Sure, my proposals only allow for a 10-fold increase in population, but what kind of idiot tries to plan 150 years in the future? Im sure that with future technologies, we won't need or want Food, Clothing, Material goods, or Housing at all! And if we need to stop growing at that time, we'll just instantly stop!

    If you over-populationists need proof - check out:

    http://www.novaspace.com/POSTERS/PHOTO/Nam-nite.ht ml

    Just look at all of the land we haven't used up yet! Sure, this is one on the least densely populated habitable areas of the world, but don't forget the Tower cities and the reduced mining, & eliminated farming, water, & foresting systems we will use!

    In the interests of staying objective, you could check out what some wacko "Scientists" say:

    http://www.absw.org.uk/Briefings/Land_resources.ht m

    but they are WRONG - we can keep growing!

  134. Hibernation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the big deal, I sleep all the time anyway!

  135. Note from the future. by paradaxiom · · Score: 0

    You don't need to read this article.

    It was already posted tomorrow.

  136. Vats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was your mention of vat transfer an intentional (albeit oblique) reference to Gibson's Count Zero? I only ask since it is such an odd concept.

  137. Re:yea, whatever :::rolls eyes, gets dizzy::: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sarcasm aside, have you noticed that food production growth has been faster than population growth for some time.

  138. Re:yea, whatever :::rolls eyes, gets dizzy::: by tre4lien · · Score: 1

    Yes, I have.

    And no, I haven't.

    It has kept up with, surpassed, and fallen behind in fits and spurts since the 1950's and the Green Revolution.

    The green revolution was an outstanding optimization of agricultural capacity - although the loss of biodiversity and nutrition diversity that resulted is troublesome. (1.6 billion hectares of efficient cropland does NOT = Nature!)

    Post-Green Revolution, The increase has matched the increase in land use.

    Advances in Dwarfism and climate-to-crop matching aside, Increase in food production will continue to be a problem until we stop using land for food production.

    Oddly enough, I was only partly sarcastic on that note - I DO think that landless food production will help us postpone population problems. There really are companies working on growing meat without growing animals. Check out :

    http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/harvesting_mea t.html