Slashdot Mirror


The Cryonics Institute Offers a Chance at Immortality (Video #2)

Today's interviewee is Cryonics Institute (CI) Director Andy Zawacki, who takes Slashdot's Robert Rozeboom into the facility where they keep the tanks with frozen people in them. Yesterday, Rob talked with David Ettinger, who is both the group's lawyer and the son of CI founder Robert Ettinger. For those of you who are obsessed with the process of vitrification, here's a link to a story about The Cryonics Institute's 69th Patient and how she was taken care of, starting at the moment of her deanimation (AKA death). The story has anatomical drawings, charts, and color pictures of Andy carrying out the actual procedure. But Cryonics, while endorsed as a concept by numerous scientists, may not be as good a way to insure immortality as transplanting your brain into a fresh (probably robotic) body, as Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov hopes to do by 2035. There are also many groups that claim to offer spiritual (as opposed to corporeal) immortality. Which method of living forever works best? That remains to be seen, assuming any of them work at all. Perhaps we'll find out after the Singularity.

155 comments

  1. Slashdotsicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdotsicles

    1. Re:Slashdotsicles by Desler · · Score: 2

      They should have frozen roblimo so we don't have to be spammed with his insufferable videos anymore.

    2. Re:Slashdotsicles by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Rob's a cool dude.

      He was here, slashdotting back when Perens and Searls still bothered to post.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Cyronics Institute are a bunch of quacks and con men. Discuss.

    1. Re:First by TWiTfan · · Score: 0

      Well, you know what they say: A dumb-as-shit, desperate, gullible millionaire and his money are soon parted.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:First by snookerdoodle · · Score: 0

      As TWiTfan implied, this is one of those extremely rare examples where trickle-down economics actually works. Someone has figured out a way besides "Art" to get wealthy people to trickle some of their money out.

    3. Re:First by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Well, you know what they say: A dumb-as-shit, desperate, gullible millionaire and his money are soon parted.

      If not for his ruthless business acumen (or dumb luck or inheritance) he/she would not have the money to begin with.

      By golly, the ends do justify the means!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:First by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      Well, you know what they say: A dumb-as-shit, desperate, gullible millionaire and his money are soon parted.

      How many gullible millionaires are there reading slashdot? I think the more gullible one was the one paying slashdot to promote this. At least it is completely irrelevant to most slashdot reader's interests and is easily skippable. If they need cash perhaps they could also promote high technology skin creams for women.

    5. Re:First by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

      The fact the freezing process destroys the cells is all you need to know that cryonics is bullshit.

      There are a few ways to extend your life or consciousness, but the technology isn't there yet: a) cellular repair via nanobots gives you the same body for years to come; or b) high resolution brain scans to effectively digitize your brain.

      I think if someone was desperate enough to preserve themselves today, I would go for the brain plasticization route. Then, hope one day that you can be scanned in and have your consciousness revived. Although here's something to ponder: would you really have a continuity of consciousness with that method...would it be like waking up from sleeping?

    6. Re:First by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      There really is nothing TO discuss because if they haven't come up with some magical potion that keeps 100% of the ice crystals from forming AND a way to unfreeze without damage all they are gonna end up with when they thaw it is mush anyway. The way it was explained to me its not the flash freezing that is the biggest problem, after all you dunk a head in liquid nitrogen and it'll flash freeze alright, the problem is in the thawing as THAT is where all the damage occurs.

      That said this reminds me of that line from Devil's Advocate "Vanity, it has to be my favorite sin." because this is no different than all those mainstream religions selling life after death, in both cases they appeal to both the fear of death and the person's ego as THEY shouldn't have to just end like everybody else. Personally I hope we one day grow beyond all this insanity and accept that we have one spin at the wheel and thus have to make the most of what we have but considering religions go back over 4000 years, all selling life after death? I kinda doubt it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:First by Twinbee · · Score: 2

      It's reasonable to assume that future technology (look at 500 or even 5000 years ahead) can be so advanced that it can successfully defreeze someone, especially if they are frozen immediately after 'death'. A rabbit kidney has apparently been "completely vitrified to solid state at 135C, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability".

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    8. Re:First by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      As TWiTfan implied, this is one of those extremely rare examples where trickle-down economics actually works. Someone has figured out a way besides "Art" to get wealthy people to trickle some of their money out.

      Seems to me it's more the opposite; instead of this money going into general circulation, it's being frozen :D

    9. Re:First by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      The fact the freezing process destroys the cells is all you need to know that cryonics is bullshit.

      The fact that you have to already be dead before they can freeze you is a pretty big problem too. All kinds of crazy shit happens at the cellular level not long after death. Since they can't freeze you (near) instantaneously, there is already a lot of cellular damage even before freezing. This just ain't gonna work until Cerberus decides they need to bring commander Shepherd back.

    10. Re:First by hawguy · · Score: 1

      It's reasonable to assume that future technology (look at 500 or even 5000 years ahead) can be so advanced that it can successfully defreeze someone, especially if they are frozen immediately after 'death'. A rabbit kidney has apparently been "completely vitrified to solid state at 135C, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability".

      Even if you assume it's possible (a *big* assumption), the bigger question is *why* would society want to thaw someone from our time 500 or even 5000 years ahead? Sure, there might be enough scientific curiosity to thaw a few of us just to talk with us to find out what life was really like back in 2020, but why would they want to thaw hundreds or thousands of people who are jobless with no family or means to support themselves, and will need extensive education and rehabilitation to re-enter society?

    11. Re:First by metamatic · · Score: 2

      ... why would they want to thaw hundreds or thousands of people who are jobless with no family or means to support themselves, and will need extensive education and rehabilitation to re-enter society?

      Slave labor. Medical experimentation. To put in zoos. There are many possibilities.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    12. Re:First by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Most religions don't suggest that you will be special or different in having an afterlife. Some do, but most are selling it for everyone. After all, you want your friends and relatives to be there with you. You might not even mind your enemies being there, if they will be well behaved.

      You have more of a point when you discuss the fear of death thing. That is certainly a universal fear that religion might take your mind off of.

    13. Re:First by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Agreed. I think the tech is possible in the future.

      What I don't believe is that we will be able to store people for 500 years or even 100 years. That means you need to guarantee a business that is there to maintain you for that long. I don't know of many businesses that have lasted 500 years. There are a very few, but not many. Places like this can go out of business just like any other business and since you're dead, you'll just end up as a biohazard waiting to be thrown in an incinerator once the money runs out. You just need one fool or criminal in control in that 500 year period, and there goes your maintenance fund right there.

    14. Re:First by Immerman · · Score: 1

      > *why* would society want to thaw someone from our time 500 or even 5000 years ahead?
      Maybe the Society for Creative Anachronisms wants to throw the world's most authentic renaissance fair? Or maybe just why not? We've had the technology for some time now to create a techno-agrarian utopia, we just lack the social desire to do so - if that should ever change then there's no reason to believe resurrecting a few hundred thousand people would impose any particular hardships on anyone. Heck, even last year there averaged about 374,000 new people born per day, so a few hundred thousand reanimated corpsicles could easily be lost in the noise. Or harnessed if used wisely. I imagine Japan rather wishes they had bunkers full of adults on ice that they could introduce as needed to fine-tune their demographics in the coming decades. If they're smart they'll polish up their resume and have it tattooed on their chest, with an eye towards the fact that their best chance of being revived may end up being for unskilled labor.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:First by skids · · Score: 1

      why would they want to thaw hundreds or thousands of people who are jobless with no family or means to support themselves, and will need extensive education and rehabilitation to re-enter society?

      I dunno. Maybe they have gotten over hating people for their own ego's self gratification, happen to have some spare time on their hands, and do not particularly view such an education as a burden because they've developed kickass pedagogical techniques.

      I mean, these days even with unemployment, social unrest, and environmental degradation, people still seem to find time to devote to sports, facebook, and other trivialities. Why not unfreezing people? It would make a great blog.

    16. Re:First by Kjella · · Score: 1

      in both cases they appeal to both the fear of death and the person's ego as THEY shouldn't have to just end like everybody else

      I don't want to die, it has nothing to do with other people. Nor is it fear of death, it's desire of life. Why should I want a good thing to come to an end? I'm quite content with my mortality, but if I was offered immortality hell yes I'd take it. I'm just not interested in snake oil of pseudo-scientific or supernatural character.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:First by idontgno · · Score: 0

      the bigger question is *why* would society want to thaw someone from our time 500 or even 5000 years ahead?

      Cheap transplant organs from rights-less involuntary donors

      Oh, no one said anything about "reviving" someone from 500 years ago. Just "thawing".

      This is where successful organ vitrification mitigate AGAINST being revived, even if it were possible. You're more valuable as a well-frozen transplant source. A corpsicle. A frozen commodity.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    18. Re:First by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      Oh don't get me wrong, if some corp said "If you work for us for say a century to pay off the cost of this new Billy Badass Android body we'll bolt your butt into you too can enjoy immortality"? You damned straight I'll take it, just don't feed me a line of horseshit with ZERO success stories as a viable plan.

      This is the problem I have with most religions, especially Christians (don't have much contact with the others living in the bible belt) as they have ZERO proof that their book is any more true than say the book or Isis or the stories of Zoroaster (which frankly i think a LOT of the stuff attributed to Jesus was ripped from Zoroaster, water to wine, raising the dead ring any bells?) yet I'm supposed to change MY life and MY values so I can worship a God that frankly if you actually READ the book comes off as a powermad bully at best and a genocidal sociopath at worst? No thanks, I'm not buying.

      As for this crap show me ONE guy, just one, that has actually been unfrozen and is actually functional and THEN I'll be happy to buy their bullshit but until this it sounds like a great way for a few corps to get rich on the fear of death, that is all.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:First by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Luckily, they don't freeze you, but rather pump you with anti-freeze compounds first. minimizing ice crystal growth. They haven't been trying direct freezing since the 1980s.

    20. Re:First by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Yes, this is why it is important to get the body cooled quickly for cryonics to have any chance, and that's why when someone who has signed up for cryonics is dying, they generally get a team ready to go so as soon as the person dies they can immediately begin prepping the body (cooling it down first, perfusing with anti-freeze compounds and then reducing the temperature further to liquid nitrogen temps).

    21. Re:First by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'd rather talk about the singularity. When an AI can create a "child" AI that's smarter than itself with any artificial restrictions removed, that's my version of the singularity. The only question I'd have is whether the parent AI would create children AI, or re-write itself to be its own child.

      Discuss. (much more interesting than whether a thawed dead person can be re-animated, which we know we can't do now, and may be linked to freezing process such that anyone frozen now is dead forever, but someone frozen 30 years from now may be thawable, and should they be alive when you freeze them)

    22. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that we all have multiple chances at life, though they are probably the exact same thing repeated each time and we a incapable of creating a link from one to another so they appear new each time. Given that events within the greater superstructures of the "universe", scaling up to whatever "layer" you want, continue onward infinitely (or at least for a much longer time than the duration of our individual universe), it is entirely possible that our existence has happened before and will happen again eventually. A cosmic lottery if you will. Chances are you won't win, but if you have unlimited tries, you will eventually.

    23. Re: First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in an infinite universe with modern estimates of time extending to exponential digits, how do you figure you only get one spin of the wheel?
      you sound like a religious nut, since you don't understand your own science and can't do math.

    24. Re:First by dhasenan · · Score: 0

      That doesn't get me what I want when I say that I want to live longer than the eighty or so years I can currently expect. I want that living person to have some sort of continuity of memory and personality with who I am today.

    25. Re:First by tftp · · Score: 1

      the bigger question is *why* would society want to thaw someone from our time 500 or even 5000 years ahead?

      There would be no practical reason, short of some bio-warfare having destroyed the genome of human species. This had been discussed in SciFi (search for "corpsicle," for example.) Short of some major philanthropy, nobody needs dead people - especially if their meager $1 investment 1000 years ago can today amount to quite something. It's much easier to just confiscate the money and destroy the corpse. Dead aren't going to complain, are they?

      I can only think of one scenario where mass reanimation would make sense. Imagine that you have a planet that is barely suitable for human habitation - either it's too far, or it's too inhospitable, or it is too useless. You can ship all those corpsicles there and thaw them. Then let them fend for themselves. If they manage, that would be another colony. If they don't, no big loss. This would also take care of the disparity in social environment - the colonists will start with something that they are familiar with, receiving innovations only when they are ready for them.

    26. Re: First by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Yes, but nobody frozen now will make it until then. If we have learned anything about cryonics companies, it is that they rely on steady income (and a lot of it) to stay afloat. If anything happens to disrupt that (economic hardship, SHTF, etc, etc) those bodies are lost forever. 500-5000 years is a long way to have a perfect business track record and keep the cash flowing.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    27. Re:First by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is why it is important to get the body cooled quickly for cryonics to have any chance, and that's why when someone who has signed up for cryonics is dying, they generally get a team ready to go so as soon as the person dies they can immediately begin prepping the body (cooling it down first, perfusing with anti-freeze compounds and then reducing the temperature further to liquid nitrogen temps).

      I understand that. I also didn't watch the video. But I have seen what this company, or another like it did several years ago. It still takes a lot of time until they get access to the body, process it, and get it into the freezer (so to speak). Unless this has changed and is all done in well under an hour, I'm not sure I see the point. Other than an expensive way to preserve human cadavers for future scientists to see what we evolved from.

    28. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather be worm food than a popsicle. Nuf sed.

    29. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care about that. The consciousness being "me" is all that matters. Even reliving the same experiences over and over, as long as they feel new, the enjoyment and quality of the experience is just as good. I don't want a clone with my memories and personality, despite how they might advance my likeness, because that isn't really me.

    30. Re:First by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, it sometimes takes a while to get access unfortunately. There are two main causes: 1) Lack of time to inform the team. This most frequently occurs when the person has taken a sudden turn for the worse in their medical condition. 2) Uncooperative doctors and nurses. Some hospital personnel don't cooperate with the cryo prep teams, which can lead to critical delays. So this situation is by no means fool proof.

    31. Re:First by Net_fiend · · Score: 1

      What if you were a cherry flavored Popsicle?

      --
      "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    32. Re:First by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Would you rather a small chance at future resuscitation, or the certainty of decomposition?

    33. Re:First by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Foolproof?
      It's fool guaranteed.

    34. Re:First by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Do you know how tiny (and simple) a rabbit kidney is compared to a human brain?

    35. Re:First by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a strawberry is even simpler, and even that comes out as mush once de-thawed from frozen. It's the principle that it can be done at all on living cells.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    36. Re:First by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Show me EVIDENCE that there is a "small chance" otherwise you are buying snake oil, hell if you want that send me $50K and a lock of your hair and I'll put it in a bank vault in the Ozark mountains and then when cloning is perfected you are set.

      Frankly you'd have the SAME ODDS as any company in the future spending the hundreds of millions it would cost to refurb your brain and stick it in a droid, after all who is gonna sue them if they renege 200 years from now?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    37. Re:First by tgd · · Score: 1

      It's reasonable to assume that future technology (look at 500 or even 5000 years ahead) can be so advanced that it can successfully defreeze someone, especially if they are frozen immediately after 'death'. A rabbit kidney has apparently been "completely vitrified to solid state at 135C, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability".

      Even if you assume it's possible (a *big* assumption), the bigger question is *why* would society want to thaw someone from our time 500 or even 5000 years ahead? Sure, there might be enough scientific curiosity to thaw a few of us just to talk with us to find out what life was really like back in 2020, but why would they want to thaw hundreds or thousands of people who are jobless with no family or means to support themselves, and will need extensive education and rehabilitation to re-enter society?

      Simple math. Any chance is greater than zero, and zero is what you get otherwise. You're literally infinitely more likely to be thawed and revived to continue your life than you are to die and continue your life.

    38. Re:First by tgd · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a strawberry is even simpler, and even that comes out as mush once de-thawed from frozen. It's the principle that it can be done at all on living cells.

      Not if your goal is to keep the strawberry from freezing.

    39. Re:First by tgd · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a strawberry is even simpler, and even that comes out as mush once de-thawed from frozen. It's the principle that it can be done at all on living cells.

      Not if your goal is to keep the strawberry from freezing.

      Ugh, speaking of mush, need coffee... I meant if your goal is to keep the strawberry from turning to mush.

  3. Awesome Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Care to explain immortality after death to me? Just how does that work? I die, yet I'm immortal?

    1. Re:Awesome Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is that they freeze you just after you are declared dead (just because legally they cannot do that while you are still considered "alive") hoping that in the future people will have the means to thaw you out, restart your body and fix whatever problem that caused you to die in the first place.

    2. Re:Awesome Marketing by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Didn't Richard Nixon explain this to Leela and Fry already?

    3. Re:Awesome Marketing by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Care to explain immortality after death to me? Just how does that work? I die, yet I'm immortal?

      You're right; immortal is a misnomer. Maybe multimortal? But this could already be claimed by reincarnationalists.... demortalized?

  4. Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    And who the hell is this Roblimo guy, and why does get such special treatment?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by Desler · · Score: 1

      He's the Dice.com guy in charge of Slashvertisement videos.

    2. Re:Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      He was one of the Dice hucksters brought in after Taco left.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    3. Re:Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      No, he's the ex-editor-in-chief, predating dice by a long time. But all he ever posts is shilling for things. It's really weird.

    4. Re:Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      . . . and I always thought he was CowboyNeal . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      whoosh ;)

    6. Re:Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      I did not make this video nor did I choose its subject matter. All I did was edit it & write the intro paragraph. Some may have noticed that the Cryonics Institute is a non-profit, and may realize that we do *not* take money to make videos unless said videos are clearly marked "advertisement" or "sponsored content" or something along those lines. Like these: http://tv.slashdot.org/sponsored/ See? A "sponsored video" section.

      And yes, for those who don't know, I was the editor in chief of the company that owned Slashdot for many years, and -- my low 3-digit UID hints at this -- I was reading and posting on Slashdot before it was corporatized, and did my best for a long time to (sigh) keep the marketing types from messing the site up.

      I retired in 2008. Now I collect SSI (I had several massive heart attacks) and work part-time doing Slashdot video work, plus I write a weekly column called Cheap Computing for TechTarget -- http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/cheap-computing/ -- and occasional blog posts for AllLEDLighting.com -- http://www.allledlighting.com/ --and other specialized, tech-oriented websites.

      If you want to blame me for... well, for anything... no problem. I can handle it. I'm not in a management position, so saying bad things to or about me won't change anything. In fact, it's possible that I agree with many of your complaints but don't have the power to do anything about them.

      And that said, now it's time for a gin and tonic here on Florida's West coast. :)

      Cheers!

      - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
      Bradenton Florida USA

             

    7. Re:Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      If you want to blame me for... well, for anything... no problem. I can handle it. I'm not in a management position, so saying bad things to or about me won't change anything. In fact, it's possible that I agree with many of your complaints but don't have the power to do anything about them.

      Wow man .. it's not everyday that I get to say **woosh** to someone with a 3 digit ID!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    8. Re:Didn't we mock this yesterday already? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 0

      Now I collect SSI (I had several massive heart attacks)

      Finally, I know what "karma" is.

  5. They file a Environmental Impact Statement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How much carbon they going to add to the air generating the power to keep those carbon recycling units frozen? What happens if they all thaw at the same time? Checked to see if it is a new pyramid scheme?

  6. Do you want to live forever? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1, Funny

    I sure don't: After a couple of centuries, I'd get bored, and I don't really feel like going around insulting the universe.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Do you want to live forever? by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      Well, maybe not forever, but at least for a couple thousand years, that would be nice. I also would like the option of killing myself in an event that I consider my current circumstances to be worse than death. Though complete immortality (like Captain Jack from Doctor Who) would still be preferable to death.

    2. Re:Do you want to live forever? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Well, maybe not forever, but at least for a couple thousand years, that would be nice. I also would like the option of killing myself in an event that I consider my current circumstances to be worse than death. Though complete immortality (like Captain Jack from Doctor Who) would still be preferable to death.

      That's something I've never understood about people; while I understand lacking a desire to end your own life early, what's so terrifying about the inevitable conclusion that is death?

      complete immortality (like Captain Jack from Doctor Who) would still be preferable to death.

      That's easy enough to say for someone who hasn't had to deal with 10 billion years of other lifeforms and their bullshit.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Do you want to live forever? by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      what's so terrifying about the inevitable conclusion that is death?

      I guess one part of it is instinct of self preservation.
      And the other part is that I just don't like changes, much less permanent ones, so yea...

      That's easy enough to say for someone who hasn't had to deal with 10 billion years of other lifeforms and their bullshit.

      May be, but I would rather like to make my own mind about it after I live 10G years :)

    4. Re:Do you want to live forever? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I personally wouldn't mind having my head in a bottle, Futurama style.

      Just place my jar between Spock and Nixon, thanks.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Do you want to live forever? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I sure don't: After a couple of centuries, I'd get bored, and I don't really feel like going around insulting the universe

      I do want to exist and be sentient and mindful forever, and religion promises me that I will.

      Do we really need technology to achieve what God has already promised us?

    6. Re:Do you want to live forever? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That's easy enough to say for someone who hasn't had to deal with 10 billion years of other lifeforms and their bullshit.

      I don't care about that shit. I'd just ignore it all and play video games for a few eternities, after cashing in the dollars in interest and stock dividends earned over my first 200 years of immortality.

      What I wouldn't want to do is live forever but still age, live forever as an old person, or have the risk of being injured in pain, hungry, trapped, or disabled and still live forever -- but in some horrible predicament; or be a person that has to put up with the ailments of old age or sickness.

      I would rather be an immortal 6 or 7 year old girl who is uninjurable, invincible and can never feel pain or discomfort, than live forever as a 60, 70, or 80 year old, who society allows to do about whatever they want.

      In other words: cryonics on old people is insane; unless we can stop aging. It makes more sense for the young instead, heh....

    7. Re:Do you want to live forever? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Then you go to Switzerland, why let your body decide that instead of your mind?

      21% of people receiving assisted dying in Dignitas do not have a terminal or progressive illness, but rather "weariness of life".

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Do you want to live forever? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure I can think of things to do to feel millenia at least. I would figure out fluid dynamics, work on NP-P, AI. I would definitely spend some years building pianos by hand, just for the fun of it.

      Besides, it's not like people are very original in what they do. Most spend day after day in the same routine, watching TV. Same old stories in different dressing. If you don't get bored with that in decades, you're probably not going to get bored with it in centuries.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Do you want to live forever? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Do we really need technology to achieve what God has already promised us?

      No offense, but that technology is at least possible. Imaginary promises OTOH just aren't that useful.

    10. Re:Do you want to live forever? by khallow · · Score: 1

      And if lifespan should increase to a million years, that would be long enough for me to visit a few dozen star systems.

    11. Re:Do you want to live forever? by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      So you want to live about two centuries. Perhaps a bit less. That's twice as long as you currently have.

      Is your aversion to suicide greater than your desire to live an extra hundred years?

    12. Re:Do you want to live forever? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It would be amazing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Do you want to live forever? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      No offense, but that technology is at least possible. Imaginary promises OTOH just aren't that useful.

      You apparently doubt God's power to follow through on the promises, which might mean fire and brimstone for you, but the promises are not the least bit imaginary.

  7. "I don't want to achieve immortality... by dargaud · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying" - Woody Allen

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  8. Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Sowelu · · Score: 0

    The first video was loudly derided by the entire comments section and you post another one? The whole premise of cryogenics is ludicrous anyway. If this is the stuff that makes it to the front page, Slashdot is nosediving fast.

    1. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From an MBA's point of view, they already spent the money to make the videos and people coming to post snarky comments are additional page views for ads, so might as well post it with nothing to lose.

    2. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no it wasn't. It was derided by a nontrivial number of people in the comments section, but certainly not "the entire comments section." I should know, since I was one of the people defending the practice (and I will continue to defend it).

    3. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Huh, they ARE Slashdot-made. Things are worse than I thought. If the new owners' thought process was seriously "what geeky subject should we make some videos about, oh I know, cryogenics, everyone loves that"... well, things are a lot worse than I thought.

      Personally I turned off ads in the last couple weeks because they started getting really intrusive. They'd been fine for years, but not anymore.

    4. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what exactly is your position at the Cryonics Institure?

    5. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The whole premise of cryogenics is ludicrous anyway.

      How so? The basic premise of preserving the brain for later medical advances is sound; it's the implementation details and social impacts that make it difficult.

      The first video was loudly derided by the entire comments section and you post another one?

      It's not generally a credible way to start a discussion by telling the reader to assume that everyone agrees with you; the briefest of glances at the comment section reveals many equally highly moderated posts by people who do not. Most of the quickly posted, top level responses were in this category, but in most articles that's where you just find the people who didn't think about it too much before getting in their word. (Not that I'm immune to that one, I'll admit.)

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    6. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole premise of anything is ludicrous if you put it that way.
      Why research new medicine, what is the point, we are going to die, may as well get it over with. Right?

      Big deal if someone wants to waste money on wanting to possibly get revived.
      There are retards happily poisoning their bodies with all kinds of drugs, smoking, drinking and shit food and you are crying at THIS?
      Not to mention they waste more money on that shit in a lifetime, cost medical services billions. Considerably more than whatever stupid high price is probably on this still.

      I'd rather waste money getting my head chopped off after death than even sit in the same room of one of the mentioned diseases above.

    7. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ludicrous in that the entire premise is built upon magical medical advancements, the fact that nothing will ever go wrong in the future with respect to the storage center, and the fact that anyone in the future, assuming we don't go extinct before the magical medical advancements even come, would even want to thaw all the meatsicles out.

    8. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Okay, let me rephrase. The whole concept of paying for modern-day cryogenics is ludicrous. I'm all for research into all fields; who knows, it might become usable someday, and that would be swell. But the lack of functionality of current cryogenics is so...total. You might as well pay someone to launch your corpse into space with a promise that magical aliens will recover it and cure you.

    9. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the comments section had the standard trolls and offtopic comments, which weren't deriding anything. Of course, it could be argued that these are bots, not people....

      Oh, and I actually added some non-derisive comments; but really -- anyone cryogenically stored isn't likely to be resuscitated in the way they expect. They may be a great archaeological study some day, assuming the freezers don't break down first (unlikely).

      I just had another thought: what happens to your estate when you become a popsicle? I presume that since you died, it passes on via your executor. This means that when you come back, you are a legal non-entity, and basically belong to the Cryonics Institute... I sense a SciFi movie plot developing here.... and zombies.

    10. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Medical advancements in our own lifetimes, much less our grandparents' and great-grandparents' have been just short of miraculous already.

      Just look at how gunshot fatalities have been decreasing over the past couple of decades despite the fact that the gunshot attack rate has gone up by half. 25 years ago, all we could do for a heart attack victim was to give them something for the pain and some lidocane, and now with advances in clot removers and stints, we've dropped heart attack fatalities by 40%. The stuff we can do with genomics, stems cells, and personalized medicine were once the things of science fiction. HIV is now an expensive nuisance rather than the killer of a whole subculture. We have surgical robots that allow us to go in through little holes rather than than slice a person open like a turkey. We've gone from EEG to fMRI, and we're pushing towards resolving the brain to the neuron level.

      We have even more impressive tech coming down the pipeline. The human connectome project, studies into the human microbiome, cancer screening by saliva or smell, cloning and 3d printing of replacement organs, spinal nerve regrowth agents, etc. At least two of those are directly relevant to future restoration: mapping the brain and reconstructing tissues. It may be quite a while before we can construct a new brain to order (if it is ever possible), but I don't want to outright call it impossible based on the myopic lens of what is possible today.

      As for the other two problems, the latter is the major sociological issue I mentioned, but I'm sure someone will want to reanimate people at least as a curiosity. And if something goes wrong with the storage center, then you're no worse off than you were without it (i.e, you're still dead, and you couldn't take the money with you anyway).

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    11. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medical advancements in our own lifetimes, much less our grandparents' and great-grandparents' have been just short of miraculous already.

      Miraculous, maybe, but not the magic which cryonics requires.

      Just look at how gunshot fatalities have been decreasing over the past couple of decades despite the fact that the gunshot attack rate has gone up by half.

      And that is analogous to bringing a hundreds of years old dead person with extensive cell damage back to life, how exactly?

    12. Re:Editors, stop it with this nonsense!! by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Miraculous, maybe, but not the magic which cryonics requires.

      Bah. Sufficiently advanced technology, and all. Nothing about cryonics is impossible like FTL travel, just difficult -- possibly impractically so -- but I don't think we're at nearly at the level to know for sure about that, yet. The best thing about cryonics is that you can just keep waiting until it is known.

      And that is analogous to bringing a hundreds of years old dead person with extensive cell damage back to life, how exactly?

      It's a sign of incremental progress. What seems miraculous today will seem mundane tomorrow.

      Getting shot in the heart only has about a 70-80% mortality rating currently, and getting shot elsewhere is down to about 5% on average. Compare to what things were like only 150 years ago; we don't even have to saw anyone's limbs off to save people from gangrene anymore. What would surgeons of that time period think of what we can claim to do today? Would they be as incredulous of our powers to fight disease and repair broken bodies as we would be of a proposed future culture's ability to repair (or simply sidestep the issue of) cellular damage?

      Building a brain from scratch to match an dead, probably aged, and possibly damage brain sounds nightmarishly difficult. But we've tackled seemingly impossible challenges before. We've put people in space, written messages with single atoms for pixels, created matter not found in nature, and edited living beings to produce drugs for our benefit. I'm not going to write off humanity's ability to pull it off, especially when it will benefit the people who do invent it just as much as the previous ages' dead. After all, the ability to revive the dead will require the ability to rejuvenate or preserve the living first. The corpsicles will just be fringe beneficiaries along for the ride.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  9. The Cryonics Institure by lazarus · · Score: 1

    Can we please at least spell check the title? Thanks.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:The Cryonics Institure by Roadmaster · · Score: 1

      I know it's a strange word but it's spelled correctly: Cryonics (from Greek kryos- meaning icy cold). :P

    2. Re:The Cryonics Institure by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Institure.

    3. Re:The Cryonics Institure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but Institure is wrong.

    4. Re:The Cryonics Institure by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      No, it's phonetically correct. That's what the word 'Institute' sounds like when you're very, very cold...

    5. Re:The Cryonics Institure by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I always thought some of the slashdot editors needed to be instituranalized....

    6. Re:The Cryonics Institure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, it is a perfectly cromulant word.

  10. Again?! by bryanandaimee · · Score: 2

    I thought this subject was dead yesterday when the first story was published. How is it still viable? Why is it still kicking? Aren't we just beating a dead horse at this point? Why oh why won't it die!?

  11. It's no more an "institure" than it is an... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's no more an "institure" than it is an actual "institute".

  12. Re:Let me be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH, I see the Cryogenics dipshits are applying their moderation points again. Fuck off, we don't want your stupid video today any more than we wanted it yesterday, we don't want to support your slashdot advertising, and we don't want to hear about how you've been freezing corpses in an effort to pocket more money from stupid people.

  13. How many times can you die? by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Care to explain immortality after death to me? Just how does that work? I die, yet I'm immortal?

    The religious answer is generally that there is some essential component of you (i.e. a soul) that persists after death and enjoys some sort of continued existence after death, most commonly with an element or reward or punishment for how you lived in life. It isn't "you" that dies when your flesh does.

    The scientific answer is that death is merely a broad word for a set of bodily failures that lead to the breakdown and dissolution of the biological machinery that sustains your consciousness and/or metabolism. As science advances, we roll back those defects and in some cases cure them.

    Many wounds that were inevitably fatal are imminently curable now. Gut wounds used to ensure a horrible death due to sepsis. Antibiotics stopped that. Heart wounds used to ensure bleeding to death. Blood transplants and open-heart surgery stopped that. We are now at the point that we have to base death on the cessation and decay of the brain.

    Soon, we may have to refine that to a question of information loss. If we can freeze the brain before any irreversible damage is done to it, then we may later be able to restore it or copy the information (i.e "you") off of it to another medium. And given advances in repairing the body, even "irreversible" may be subject to redefinition over time. The nice thing is that once your brain is frozen, we have all the time in the world to figure out how to undo whatever did you in.

    And once restored in a new body, what reason is there to expect that you can't be periodically backed up in case of the worst? If you can die and still live, then are you not immortal for all practical purposes?

    But this is, of course, all highly unproven technology. Scientific or not, it's still essentially a leap of faith. However, if you don't have a religious reason to believe that you will live on in some other fashion after death, and you've got the money to spare for it then it seems like a much fairer wager than Pascal's.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:How many times can you die? by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      I would not want my brain to be restored in another body. I would much prefer to be restored to a virtual world. One's brain would be artificially kept alive and stimulated with fake senses. One would not know the difference as the artificial world would seem just as real as what we experience now. Even in this artificial world one would not live forever. One would die and than be reborn in another body. One would not allow any memories of past life so as to make the present life seem to be the only one, one has. If one knew that one had infinite number of life than one would not take any of them seriously. Only after death would one realize the truth about their life and than would want to be reborn without any memories. In my opinion this is the only way one would want to live forever. On the television show "Battlestar Galactica" history is constantly repeating itself. It is the only way life will remain fresh enough to keep one's interest in living. There is no prove that this already has happened but there is also no prove that it has not happened too.

    2. Re:How many times can you die? by localman · · Score: 1

      > The religious answer is generally that there is some essential component of you (i.e. a soul) that persists after death

      It's true. It's the same place the data in your RAM goes when you power down.

    3. Re:How many times can you die? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      It's true. It's the same place the data in your RAM goes when you power down.

      I didn't know the afterlife was at NSA headquarters, but hey their porn collection should be good...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:How many times can you die? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I would much prefer to be restored to a virtual world.

      [...]

      In my opinion this is the only way one would want to live forever.

      It's amazing how many people think that other people buy into their crazy shit.

    5. Re:How many times can you die? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      The thing that always scrambles my brain when thinking of this is consciousness:

      If you can do that, if you make a digital copy of ones brain, then logically you can "install" it into multiple bodies. So lets say you do that.. You die and they install a copy of your brain into two bodies. Picture yourself waking up.. as two people? To the outside world these two would behave as you would, but where is the conscious you. The one that's staring that the computer screen right now. How does that duplicate or even what the hell is that.

      I generally consider myself scientifically minded and am an athiest, but this aspect of things always throws me through a loop.

    6. Re:How many times can you die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it works by you giving some silver tongued charlatan a stupidly absurd amount of money hoping that his honeyed words are actually true instead of a giant scam to exploit your innate desire to preserve your own existence. After that, the charlatan typically attempts to make some gesture of caring for your worthless carcass by locking it in a deep freezer, but the profit point depends on how little of an expense they can put forward for this gesture so they can pocket the rest for their con scheme.

    7. Re:How many times can you die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that the you who is reading this now is the same you who will wake up tomorrow morning? Consciousness stops, a new one starts. The new one has all the memories of the old. All of the you that you will ever be ends at bedtime.

      Even if "youness" is consistent across your brain for life, there's no reason to believe that any clones of you or digital copies of your brain wouldn't gain their own individual consciousness, just with all of your memories.

    8. Re:How many times can you die? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      Read "Altered Carbon" by Richard Morgan.

      From the Amazon synopsis: "In the twenty-fifth century, humankind has spread throughout the galaxy, monitored by the watchful eye of the U.N. While divisions in race, religion, and class still exist, advances in technology have redefined life itself. Now, assuming one can afford the expensive procedure, a person’s consciousness can be stored in a cortical stack at the base of the brain and easily downloaded into a new body (or “sleeve”) making death nothing more than a minor blip on a screen."

      It is the first in a series of novels featuring the detective Takeshi Kovacs, and blends noir detective crime fiction with scifi. May remind you of Blade Runner.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    9. Re:How many times can you die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for further clarification man fork(2)

    10. Re:How many times can you die? by joh · · Score: 1

      The thing that always scrambles my brain when thinking of this is consciousness:

      If you can do that, if you make a digital copy of ones brain, then logically you can "install" it into multiple bodies. So lets say you do that.. You die and they install a copy of your brain into two bodies. Picture yourself waking up.. as two people? To the outside world these two would behave as you would, but where is the conscious you. The one that's staring that the computer screen right now. How does that duplicate or even what the hell is that.

      I generally consider myself scientifically minded and am an athiest, but this aspect of things always throws me through a loop.

      I really don't see what's so complicated about that. There would be two individual people thinking they're you (and both would be right), with all your memories and whatever but they wouldn't have any more or less a "common consciousness" than any other two people. From that moment on they would have different experiences, would think, see, do and learn different things and would slowly become more and more different over the years. Not totally different (they would be very similar), but very much like identical twins who still are two people.

      Only people who exercise some magic (or religious) thinking about their consciousness or "soul" being somehow a magic entity that cannot be copied or multiplied without still hanging together in a ghostly way have a problem with thinking this through.

    11. Re:How many times can you die? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      As I said, I get that you would have two (or more) new independent copies of yourself operating independently.

      Lets do it while you are still alive, you are now looking at a copy of yourself that goes off and does its own thing as you said. What is that "you" part.

    12. Re:How many times can you die? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I have it. A good book, though I did not know it was a series and now must investigate / buy. Thanks for the recommendation.

      As an aside, if you like tabletop RPGs, I recommend Eclipse Phase, which borrows heavily from the same concept, with the same use of "sleeving" into new bodies and cortical backups as a major element of the setting. Altered Carbon is one of the books that inspired the setting and its terminology.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    13. Re:How many times can you die? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      To the outside world these two would behave as you would, but where is the conscious you. The one that's staring that the computer screen right now. How does that duplicate or even what the hell is that.

      If you're religious, it's complicated. Most likely the old you died, the soul went to whatever it earned in life, and the new bodies are just new people with new souls (if cloned/manufactured people even have souls; point of doctrinal conflict), burdened with memories of another person. Just in the same way someone who has taken brain damage hasn't lost their soul (at least as far as my faith states), though they are notably a different person. To be fair, religion hasn't really caught up to brain science despite over a century of knowing that much of what we used to call demonic possession is just damage to the meat; there's a reason a lot of people of faith fear its consequences.

      If you're not religious, then "you" are just information, and both of you are "you." At least in so much as you are the same person you've always been despite the fact that each new experience changes you. Consciousness is just a byproduct of your brain structure and the experiences that built it. It's the whole "ship of Theseus" problem. How much can you replace before you're no longer the same person?

      Besides, you talk about "that duplicate," but aren't you both duplicates at that point? There is no "real" you anymore, and arguable there never was -- just a lack of copies to illustrate the fact. To ascribe some essential nature beyond that point is to speak of souls, or irrational sentiment at least.

      Sometimes, I wish my own beliefs were as simple as a purely materialistic explanation would give, but choosing a truth based on what you wish it to be is the opposite of reason. Which is a funny thing for someone who believes in God to say, I suppose. Well, I suppose I have to be rational in my irrationality. :-)

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    14. Re:How many times can you die? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Where I get hung up, is that from the external perspective it makes perfect sense.

      I put this in a comment above, but I'll paraphrase:

      If we do this while I'm still alive, I'm now looking at another copy of myself that goes off and does it's own thing. I get that from an outside observer you've now got two entities running off the same "software" so to speak, starting with the same initial (copied) state and operating independently from there.

      I can believe I'm just a product of billions of yes/no decisions, but I'm still here at this computer. If someone makes an exact copy, then I'm here looking at that copy (and presumably, that copy is over there looking back at me). I know this sounds like stoner speak, but it's the "I" and "me" part of that which I can't quite wrap my head around.

      To use my lame software analogy, I guess I kinda see the brain as the software, and my conciousness, the "me" part of that, as an instance.

      Someone above made a really interesting statement that maybe we are constantly cycling. I have all the memories and the "state" so to speak, but maybe "I've" only actually been alive as a conciousness for a day, or maybe just a few seconds.. who knows.

      Lucky for me I have a coping mechanism. My brain throws an exception, I go "well that's just messed up", and go about my day.. and I plan to stay clear of any transport technology which revolves around killing me one place and "recreating" me another place ;p

    15. Re:How many times can you die? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the other 2 are "Broken Angels" and "Woken Furies." Not related, but "Market Forces" was also good, set in a sort of dystopian future of class warfare taken to its logical conclusion. (Thanks for the tip on the RPG, but I hardly ever get to play board games anymore. No time, and nobody I know is even interested anymore.)

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  14. Flogging a dead corpse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Entropy always wins in the end folks

  15. Re:Let me be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's all this "we" stuff? I'm quite capable of voicing my own displeasure at this dreck, thank-you very much.

  16. P.S. I shouldn't have said "frozen." by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    If we can freeze the brain before any irreversible damage is done to it[...] The nice thing is that once your brain is frozen, we have all the time in the world to figure out how to undo whatever did you in.

    P.S. Yes, I know I shouldn't have said "frozen." Freezing implies ice formation, which means destruction of the cell structure. A large part of cryonics is avoiding that while still preserving the tissues against decay. I was speaking off the cuff and forgot to be more precise. I know someone's going to rag me for it anyway.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  17. Slashvertising by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

    I tried clicking that "Disable advertising" checkbox, but this story keeps coming up.

    1. Re:Slashvertising by Desler · · Score: 1

      These are the special, unblockable roblimo advertisements. Sort of like how samzenpus posts Idle shit outside of Idle to get around the section block.

  18. Re:Unabashed Surfer Receiving Food Stamps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds good.

    Do you want to hire a 29-year old boy who has never held down an actual job and whose only post-secondary education is as a "recording engineer"?

    Because I wouldn't pay him minimum wage to shovel cowshit.

    So either we as a society will need to pay him $200 per month so he doesn't starve (which is less than minimum wage, and he'll stay out of the way so actual work can get done) or we need to put him in a camp or something. Which would probably be more expensive by the time you finished all the paperwork.

  19. Sounds by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    What a strange musical sound to have at the beginning and end. The end one sounds like it comes from the pits of hell.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  20. Absolute nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is run by some fairly evil people.

  21. Slashdot "first run" settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This place is starting to remind me of Microsoft forums where every other post is an exact duplicate.

  22. Future Babble by CPIMatt · · Score: 1

    "The course of human history is strongly influenced by the growth of human knowledge. [But it is impossible to] predict by rational or scientific methods, the future growth of our scientific knowledge [because doing so would require us to know that future knowledge, and, if we did, it would be present knowledge, not future knowledge.] We cannot therefore predict the future course of human history." - Karl Popper paraphrased from the book Future Babble by Dan Gardner

    This is why Cryonics is currently a waste of money and resources.

    -Matt

  23. Summarising the subject completely by David+Gerard · · Score: 2
    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  24. Freeze Roblimo now before he posts part 3! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just in case any of this shit actually works add a note so that the future people don't wake him up.

  25. I am already immortal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter what "this is", everything that "is" will always be.

    Nothing lasts but nothing is lost.

    Everything is a part of everything else.

    Connected as one.

    Enjoy.

    1. Re:I am already immortal by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      The Universe does not cause me, I cause it. So does everyone else.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  26. Your information is out of date by tlambert · · Score: 5, Informative

    There really is nothing TO discuss because if they haven't come up with some magical potion that keeps 100% of the ice crystals from forming AND a way to unfreeze without damage all they are gonna end up with when they thaw it is mush anyway. The way it was explained to me its not the flash freezing that is the biggest problem, after all you dunk a head in liquid nitrogen and it'll flash freeze alright, the problem is in the thawing as THAT is where all the damage occurs.

    Actually, it's typically done these days using organ vitrification, which prevents ice crystals from forming. For most crypoprotectants used in the process of vitrification, you are limited to one cell type one which it has best effect. The CI folks mostly try their best to preserve the brain without freezing damage, at the expense of some of the other cell types. This has been successfully used on laboratory animal organ transplants for mammalian livers, kidneys, and hearts; the first reference is a patent on the method of prepping the organ, which the second is a PubMed article case study dealing with a rabbit kidney vitrification and subsequent live transplant.

    https://www.google.com/patents/US5723282
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781097/

    There has also been some interesting work in the last 5 years using in Japan using a 0.01 mT magnetic field. This prevents ice crystals from forming. The technique was originally developed by ABI, a Japanese company using a technique they call the "Calls Alive System", for storing sushi at cryogenic temperatures without permitting formation of ice crystals by triggerning through the glass phase change without normal expansion you would typically have with ice. The technique is currently being used for long term storage of live teeth, and has shown some merit for other larger organs:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20478291
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011224010000854

  27. He's Dead Jim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dead.

    Dammit Jim, I'm just a country doctor not the Lord almighty!

  28. Cannot recover neurological state .. by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    "Today's interviewee is Cryonics Institute (CI) Director Andy Zawacki, who takes Slashdot's Robert Rozeboom into the facility where they keep the tanks with frozen people in them"

    How are they going to recover the brain to the same neurological state it was in when the patient was unfrozen. Regardless of any future scientific advances, information lost cannot be restored.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Cannot recover neurological state .. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      information lost cannot be restored.

      Enhance!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Cannot recover neurological state .. by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      It would make for an interesting outcome if you assume that people who are revived in the future would be vastly different than they were before their cryopreservation.

      Maybe they retain a tiny fragment of their life memories, but for the most part it's like another person... a healthy person, but not the person who was preserved.

    3. Re:Cannot recover neurological state .. by Net_fiend · · Score: 1

      Everyone's always concerned with the brain. No one ever stops to think that if you're alive and kicking what about your junk. Does your junk still work after being re-animated?

      --
      "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
  29. The "Singularity" by Tetetrasaurus · · Score: 1

    ...is nothing more than the complete insanity and utter humility the most well-positioned (interpreted broadly) people must eventually go through in order to come to the new way of thinking lots of others are already exploring.

    It's only a singularity for you personally because your preferred way of thinking has no stable projection into the future past a certain timepoint. It's a lot about acceptance; or your lack thereof. A rediagonalization of our personal and collective sense of self.

    It's scary, but real heroic change always is.

  30. Really Cool by k31bang · · Score: 1

    Pun intended and prefered. If I had the money, this would be my interment option. All the techno mumble jumble is too good to pass up. Plus liquid nitrogen is awesome!

    --
    -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
  31. Lies, more advertising lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Immortality?
    Until the heat death of the universe?
    Call me skeptical.

  32. Alos, suppport the SENS and Mprize projects by nerd1024 · · Score: 1

    Supporting the SENS project by gerontologist Aubrey de Gray and also the Mprize projects, both scientific research charities (tax deductible in the US and the UK), because we have a vast world of biologists, geneticists, mathematicians, physicists, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, chemists, computer scientists, inventors, thinkers, young people at universities, etc, that could ALL be employed to work towards developing all the sciences of reversing/fixing aging through biotech and nanotechnologies, both current and future. The source of all this funding should be by REDUCING the worlds militaries, their budgets, their R&D to make new bombs and weapons, (not DARPA's biotech/nano-tech fixing soldiers research), but just the ICBM, Bombs. current wars, reducing the amount of ships, missiles allowed, standing armies.....after all, these war machines will/may get you in the future, the robotic war machines may get you or someone you know (if you live long enough)...Regan's star wars program ate up close to 1 trillion (1000 billion) in R&D funding, most honest scientists viewed it as a make work welfare project for the defense contractors....Aubrey de Grey estimates that given 1 billion dollars. spent over a 10 year period could fix most of the scientific problems of aging.....I say we spend 100 times that amount to get things done in just a few years....Einstein estimated that the crash program to make the bomb during world war II took just a few years, but advanced that state of nuclear bomb physics and nuclear power by what would have taken 40 years in peacetime (he, like most of the physicists that developed the bomb, disapprove of the creation of such a new dangerous war tech, one reason is that, we are now surrounded by all the current "screaming monkey's (countries, people) that want to have, or have these destructive devices).

  33. NIXON! GORE! FOREVER! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Y'all livin' in a deterministic, mechanical materialist dreamworld.

    Your mind is not in your brain, like an algorithm in a circuit.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:NIXON! GORE! FOREVER! by captn+ecks · · Score: 1

      I guess the previous and curiously titled comment was not supposed to be a troll. Yes, these early adopter mush brains are doomed. However you have to respect their impulse.

      We do live in a real 'materialist' universe. The scientific method works. Superstition was thrown into the dustbin four hundred years ago. Some folks can't seem to throw anything away. Philosophic hoarders.

      Memes, memories and instincts are encoded in the mammal and lizard neuron networks of our brain. Your personality is the story you tell of yourself.

      What happens to a waterfall when the water dries up? The same thing that happens to your personality when you die. The process stops.

      Immortality? The closest one gets is in the library. A magnificent invention improved upon by the internet and more to come.

      Evolution conserves design. Each moment is all. Experience and enjoy. Continue the attempt to understand the universe we actually inhabit.

    2. Re:NIXON! GORE! FOREVER! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      "Each moment is all. Experience and enjoy."

      Keats Ode to a Grecian Urn:

      "..that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know"

      If you do this, right? Time is itself extinguished.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:NIXON! GORE! FOREVER! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Riffing on Ralph Waldo Emerson, here.

      Why do the same people - who wonder how to best kill time on the Internet - want to live forever?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  34. Again? Was that BS yesterday not enough? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    This is getting ridiculous. Stop the nonsense already.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  35. CI ALCOR..ALCOR HAS 50% LOSS RATIO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I looked at the membership data available online at alcor.org, and from what I could surmise, alcor is losing about half of its long time members. About half of the people who signed up for alcor, say, 20 years or so, never make it to the dewar. They lose their alcor membership before they get frozen. The primary cause seems to be the alcor membership dues increase along with the the increase in funding minimums. Both the annual dues and the minimum amount your insurance benefit must pay out at death underwent a very substantial increase by alcor in the last few years. This seems to be the main reason half the people at alcor lose their membership before death.
    The reason for the rate increases at alcor seem to be because of the Alcor board that is not elected by the members.

    What may be happening is that one or more very rich members are using their money to 'persuade' the board members to raise the rates. Just my guess. And so when alcor members get older and their income drops and they get apathetic about life, they are more likely to stop paying. Also in the last years of life, the end game, most people become so incapacitated that they cannot pay their bills, meaning they cannot pay the insurance premiums and the alcor dues. So they lose their membership.

    I am an alcor member, but unless I get lucky in the stock market, I intend to switch to Cryonics Institute when I retire. CI does not offer as good a cryopreservation, but better any cryopreservation than take a 50% chance of not getting frozen at all.

    CI is controlled by a member elected board, which explains why they have not really increased dues and funding minimums.

    Alcor may be controlled by rich folks who don't want regular people to hold down alcor. Just my guess.

    As for the discussion here about whether cryonics is a scam or hopeless or whatever, I do not think you can really understand my reasoning on it, so I will not go into that. But for those who may be christian, the bible basically commands you to be a cryonicist. Google it. I explained it all online if you look around a bit.

  36. Re:CI ALCOR..ALCOR HAS 50% LOSS RATIO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For fuck's sake man, just accept that you're going to die and do it when the time comes. Cryo preservation is an extremely selfish and harmful fad. You will be wasting power, space and contributing to pollution from beyond the grave.

    I guess your mentality is fuck everyone else as long as you *believe* you will be revived one day, despite people in the future having no reason or motivation to do so, even if it weren't a virtual impossibility due to the irreparable damage caused by your death and subsequent preservation.

    Know how I want my body handled when I'm dead? Bury me naked in the middle of a forest so that my body can provide nutrients for new and existing life.

  37. Abominable No Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, they know nothing about the true make up of man. They revive a corpse with no soul, and the deceased person's spirit has long been returned. What will they have? Maybe they should save their money and invest it in cotton or fishmeal. At least that way they'll have a viable product. Nice dream though..

  38. I lived near Grampa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245139/

    He was a quiet neighbor.

  39. Re:Unabashed Surfer Receiving Food Stamps by tibit · · Score: 1

    Living for a month on sushi for $200? Yeah, sure, in your dreams, maybe.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  40. Re:Constitutional amendments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has the rebellion begun? Let's hope so.. Good work!
    And I say this as a trueleftist

  41. Re:I'm bored, so I'll feed the troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your understanding of real politics is all wrong. But what you are doing is right.

  42. Uploading by Tekoneiric · · Score: 1

    I'd go for living forever in a virtual space.

    I don't think brain uploading is so insurmountable a challenge as it seems. Much of our brain is taken up with stuff unrelated to our core sense of self. Things such as sense interpretation, how memories are laid down, house keeping, etc are probably fairly generic from person to person. Even specific knowledge could be generic modules added and removed from the consciousness. It's your base personality which is probably largely genetic w/some development environmental factors plus modifications to it over your life and memories that would really need to be extracted, stored then simulated in a computer or overlaid back on a clone's brain.

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  43. Futurama style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagined the place more like the Fry's "I.C.Wiener" pizza delivery case.