Slashdot Mirror


A 2-Year-Old Has Become the Youngest Person Ever To Be Cryonically Frozen

merbs writes: After losing a long battle with brain cancer, 2-year-old Matheryn Naovaratpong became the first minor ever to be cryogenically frozen. This article is the story of how a Thai girl was frozen in Bangkok and shipped to Arizona to have her brain preserved in liquid nitrogen, while medical science works on a cure. "Typically we’d move the head from the trunk of the body. We didn't know what their reaction would be from the family, the mortuary, from border officials; this has to go through a number of shipping venues, customs, the TSA and so on. To see a frozen head in a box might have raised a number of red flags. In the U.S. that’s not a big deal, but there, they may not be accustomed."

54 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. WHAT? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok.. I read this..

    "To see a frozen head in a box might have raised a number of red flags. In the U.S. that’s not a big deal, but there, they may not be accustomed."

    And I think.. what the fuck is wrong with this country???

    1. Re:WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whats in the box!!!! - Brad Pitt from Seven

    2. Re:WHAT? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's probably pretty common in southern border towns.

    3. Re:WHAT? by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      Should have added 7 more and put them in a duffel bag.

    4. Re:WHAT? by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying that a dead 2 year old, who had already had half her brain removed and the other half was seriously damaged, and dunking that in liquid nitrogen with the hope that someday a new body could be built for her and she'd be perfectly normal again ... is a con?

      Oh ... ya ... it is ...

      I don't know how the fuck anyone falls for it. Really... Why would they think that even if their bodies were preserved that long, and the technology was invented to create what's missing, and repair all the damage done by the freezing process, that anyone would spend the 14 bazillion New Earth credits (or whatever currency there is in futureland) to bring some old fucker back?

      In her case, the could have just saved a DNA sample. The story is clear about the condition her brain was in. Half was gone. The other half critically damaged.

      I'd have to think that it would be questionable in futureland to resurrect a 20th century person, even if they were in pristine condition. Say 21 years old with much above average intelligence, who was taught everything that there is to know, with no medical issues, no trauma. Just frozen as-is without cellular damage. Why would anyone opt to wake them up? Just to ask "Hey, so what was life like in the 20th century?"

      The whole cryogenics "industry" is a huge con.

      If these people are religious in the least, they'd have to believe that the soul was trapped in that frozen body until it was awakened. If it wasn't, there would be no reason to reincarnate them. What if they picked the wrong part to freeze? Like, if the soul was really in the liver, or maybe in the spinal cord between C1 and C3. Oops, sorry, we cut that part off.

      And if they aren't religious in the least, why bother? So they can wake up as a curiosity in the future? "Hi Cro-Magnon. Fire hot. We have spoken languages you don't understand. And try to wrap your mind around these three seashells. No more poison ivy toilet paper for you. No, don't hit females with a club to make them your mate/slave."

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:WHAT? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're right, anyone in their right mind wouldn't fall for this scam.
      But I suppose that parents who lost their 2 year old kid after a long and painful illness aren't exactly in their right mind.

  2. Yeah, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here in the US people ship frozen heads around all the time.

    1. Re:Yeah, by blang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup, I use it to save money on my travels.
      Just ship my frozen head with UPS to nearest cryogenic lab, and get stitched up.
      Luckily three are lots of labs that have perfected the technique of splicing together the nerve threads, thawing the body parts, not to mention freezing the body parts without the use of poisonous chemicals preventing the water in the body from crystallizing and ripping the human flesh to shreds during the thawing process.

      Honestly, I think the whole cryogenics industry ought to be frogmarched to jail and never let out. Is it quackery, fraud, and cruel, preying on grieving relatives, selling false hopes, engaging in grotesque experiments with human remains.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    2. Re:Yeah, by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Well, at least not at these prices.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Yeah, by iris-n · · Score: 2

      Honestly, I think the whole religious industry ought to be frogmarched to jail and never let out. Is it quackery, fraud, and cruel, preying on grieving relatives, selling false hopes, engaging in grotesque experiments with human remains.

      There, fixed that for you. The major point of most religions is to comfort people from their fear of death. All the religions I can think of prey of grieving relatives, sell them false hopes of an afterlife, and perform some grotesque ritual with human remains.

      The difference is that unlike religions, cryonics is actually based in reality. Everything else is guaranteed to not work; but according to our current knowledge, cryonics is the best shot we have to actually cure death.

      Of course it is highly unlikely to work, but it is a completely different league than burying (or burning) a body and hoping that some god will grant that soul eternal life in some paradise.

      --
      entropy happens
  3. Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by timrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can remember reading several articles which stated that cryonics doesn't work because the freezing process is not perfect - it does not stop decomposition, which older frozen specimens were starting to show. Why do people still spend money on this?

    1. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people believe in an Invisible Sky Wizard? Why do people play the lottery? It's called Hope and as irrational and non-sensical as it may be it's an essential part of the Human condition.

    2. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3

      I don't think I would get myself frozen, but to take the opposite point of view for a second, no one has any idea what is going to be developed in the medical field. If somehow we can eventually get cells to regenerate themselves and recreate a human body, who really knows what amount we will need replace. Maybe the freezing process will slow the decomp. ENOUGH.

    3. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by mariox19 · · Score: 2

      Pandora brought the box of ills and opened it. It was the gift of the gods to men, outwardly a beautiful and seductive gift, and called the Casket of Happiness. Out of it flew all the evils, living winged creatures, thence they now circulate and do men injury day and night. One single evil had not yet escaped from the box, and by the will of Zeus Pandora closed the lid and it remained within. Now for ever man has the casket of happiness in his house and thinks he holds a great treasure; it is at his disposal, he stretches out his hand for it whenever he desires; for he does not know the box which Pandora brought was the casket of evil, and he believes the ill which remains within to be the greatest blessing, it is hope. Zeus did not wish man, however much he might be tormented by the other evils, to fling away his life, but to go on letting himself be tormented again and again. Therefore he gives Man hope,- in reality it is the worst of all evils, because it prolongs the torments of Man.

      — Friedrich Nietzsche

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    4. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Informative

      Any sort of freezing process destroys every cell wall, basically. The ice crystals that form from the water in our cells are like little glass spikes. There is no coming back from that. You have about as much change of resurrecting a cow from ground up beef.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by sexconker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is why current processes remove as much fluid from the body as possible, inject various chemicals, and freeze as quickly as possible to prevent the formation of ice crystals.

      Animal tests from decades ago show that even "standard" freezing and thawing results in a living, resurrected animal for a few hours.

    6. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by pla · · Score: 2

      I can remember reading several articles which stated that cryonics doesn't work because the freezing process is not perfect - it does not stop decomposition, which older frozen specimens were starting to show. Why do people still spend money on this?

      See, you've looked at this entirely the wrong way.

      Yes, all these suckers currently having their heads frozen have basically wasted their money. But instead of pointing and laughing, look at it this way - We might someday benefit as a result of using these corpsesicles as guinea-pigs to learn how to slow the clock of decay that starts at the moment of death.

      No, Walt Disney and Matheryn Naovaratpong will never see this universe again; but what we learn from them might buy us an extra five minutes to get proper treatment after a heart attack or stroke.

      So, ix-nay on the "wasting your money" bit! Instead, encourage your rich but scientifically-ignorant friends to "preserve" their bodies "for the future"!

    7. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by stevedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, hope is a belief that the world and everything in it has potential energy, and that under the right circumstances that can be converted into "kinetic" energy (i.e., the force of change). It is the belief that just because the ball is not moving does not mean the ball cannot move. It also means that just because a person believes that they have no value (or perhaps even currently do not seem to have much value) does not mean that they are, in fact, incapable of having value or of someday recognizing what their value is or could be.

      If "enlightenment" means believing that the world cannot be anything other than it, in its present state, currently is, then I do not want to be enlightened, because my enlightenment would be invalidated one nanosecond later, since even in that time the world would have done that which I had assumed to be impossible, and changed.

    8. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Beautifully refuted. Thank you.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by Narishma · · Score: 2

      Do you mean the animal lives for a few hours after being unfrozen, then dies or that it is frozen for a few hours, then unfrozen and continues to live?

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    10. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      And at 2 years old, the body might be able to even develop and learn from scratch again.

    11. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by Chalnoth · · Score: 2

      There's, "Maybe we'll someday be able to do this, and that would be really cool," there's, "This is currently in development and should soon be widely available," and then there's, "This is fundamentally impossible and there is no conceivable way it would ever work."

      Cryogenics falls into the last category. This will become especially clear if you read up on what they actually did to the girl's dead body. There's more than enough amazing stuff in the first two categories to retain wonder for the future. We don't need to pretend that one day frozen corpses will be brought back and able to walk on top of that.

    12. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by cfalcon · · Score: 2

      I mean, doesn't everyone know this? The entire idea is predicated on, not the future having good "thaw tech", but upon the entire set of techs that could be curative in some fashion, along with a desire to resurrect people to begin with. Many of those who are frozen are essentially saying "at some point you'll have some machines that can read what I am from my frozen cells and make a copy of me". I mean, most cryo patients are just a frozen head at this point, so clearly "can thaw and somehow repair cellular damage" is secondary to "...also entire body missing".

    13. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I reject your reality and substitute my own.

    14. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by blang · · Score: 2

      The odds are not irrelevant at all. In fact they are essential when it comes to separating from false hope and real hope and wishful dreaming.

      When the odds are impossible, with chance of a positive outcome at exactly zero, the hope is irrational, at least if you know or should know that it is 0.
      When the odds are possible, such as a one billionth chance of winning the lottery, the hope is slim, although rational. If your estimation of the probability is far removed from reality, then also this hope would be irrational. For example, I can buy a lottery ticket, but expect on continuing with that the rest of my life without seeing a profit. I can hope to win, rationally. However, if you go and buy a lottery ticket, and then proceeds to buy a new ferrari and a house as if you'd already won the lottery, then your hope is irrational.

      When I at my ripe age enter a marathon trace, I don't hope to win. I can hope to finish in 5 or 6 hours or whatever it is, several hours after teh winners have crossed the goal line. I could hope of being among the top contenders in my age group, or even win the age group. If I hoped to win the whole thing, not only would I be irrational, I'd probably cause severe harm to health trying to compete at a level far beyond abilities.

      Likewise, if your project has 3 weeks worth of effort remaining before it is anywhere near done, but the deadline is in 30 minutes, then the hope of making that deadline is irrational, and trying to rush things to make that deadline would probably do more harm than good..

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    15. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by xmousex · · Score: 2

      there is no coming back from that today.

      it is not impossible for a regenerative process to one day be capable of solving this issue. it is also not impossible that the cryo methods will improve over time to reduce the amount of damage done. in time the two points will meet along the way somewhere and we will have the first restored person.

      they may have the total iq of a pile of regurgitated watermelon, but they will have functioning neurons again in a way that resembles life.

      the alternative for most of these people would be a box in the ground or a tube of ashes, how is that fate any better then one that gives science a playground?

      i would do it. there are things that we can learn in this process. It might not be about eternal life but it could continue to help develop medical processes that further aid in combat medicine, traffic accident survival, advanced forms of cancer surgery or organ transplantation. If my body is dead anyways why not?

    16. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      At least it will supply the future with a few extra corneas, dura mater, etc.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by joh · · Score: 2

      Hope, and judging that rotting over weeks or rotting over decades in the worst case will mean they will end up the same way, just slower.

      The next step will be (probably destructive) high-resolution scanning of the physical brain structure and then saving the scan data in the hope that one day we will be able to "decode" that data and "run" the brain on some other hardware by emulating it's biology. At least that data will keep fresh much, much longer (potentially). Baby steps to immortality. There's nothing wrong with trying.

      Effective immortality will be the most lucrative product ever. Sooner or later we will grow some of us into ghosts and maybe even gods. And they probably will be the same ill-tempered, asshole-gods as all of them are. Well, or not. At least we should try.

      Do you really want to die in the same body you were born in? Like a fucking animal?

    18. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Insects can be, but that's because freezing during the winter and thawing during the summer is part of many insects survival system. Some larger animals can do this as well, IIRC, but they have specially developed systems for it that basically replace most of the water in their bodies with an anti-freeze solution. In theory it's possible to do something similar with humans, but we're nowhere near the technology to do so. Modern cryogenics might be good for preserving human tissue for future analysis (to observe genetic drift and the like), but that's about it.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    19. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      What does Phil have to do with all this?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Lives for a few hours after being unfrozen.

    21. Re:Hasn't this been proven to be junk science? by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 2

      To hope is to long for circumstances to change. That is to say, one rejects what is real and wishes instead for a fantasy.

      Fundamentally, hope is a rejection of truth, and hence the antithesis of enlightenment.

      I completely disagree. When I proposed to my wife, I hoped she would say yes. Hope was the desire for a specific outcome without knowing that outcome in advance. Since she is now my wife, my hope was not a rejection of what is real.

      Now, hope without action is pretty stupid. Hoping that she would be my wife without actually taking the steps to court her and eventually pop the question would be rather foolish.

  4. How are you going to "cure" a ravaged brain? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    Not to be too harsh about it, but presumably, brain cancer ravished her brain, right? Even putting aside that cryogenic freezing is bullshit pseudoscience to begin with, how exactly would finding a cure for brain cancer in the future help someone who already had their brain destroyed by it? That's like giving FDR the polio vaccine and expecting him to walk again.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:How are you going to "cure" a ravaged brain? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      It would be no less effective and much less cruel to forgo the $50,000 cryogenic freezing and just sell the grieving parents a $100 "Time Travel Rescue Promissory Note," promising that when time travel is invented in the future, your company will come back and save their kid before her or she dies.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  5. Not fully junk by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They are still working on better chemical cocktails for cryopreservation. We know we can do this with single-celled organisms and there is some evidence it works on organs as well. It might be questionable science, in that you might pay in and never wake up again, but it isn't really junk science.

    Why do people still spend money on this?

    It gives them hope. Does it harm you for them to spend their money this way? Sure there are other things they could do that would likely be more beneficial for mankind as a whole, but there are worse things, too.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Not fully junk by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.

      In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.

    2. Re:Not fully junk by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...no?

      There's no way to make any sense out of a fully decomposed corpse. There's understood ways to make some sense out of frozen cells.

      For your assertion to be correct, we have to assume that the damage done to cells during the vitrification process is somehow much worse and irreversible than the wholesale consumption of those cells by microorganisms and/or the complete decomposition of the majority of organic compounds, and that the structural preservation brought about by vitrification is not helpful in any way.

      Granted, we don't know future tech. But it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:

      1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea.
      2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be.
      3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech.

      The case where "Those who decay can be revived, but cryo patients cannot" seems EXTREMELY unlikely- less likely than (2) and (3), both of which are pinned on thin hopes to begin with.

    3. Re:Not fully junk by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and it's pretty much just a brain, because the other half was already destroyed by cancer.

      That part doesn't make much sense to me at all.
      Spinal Damage. Stopped Heart. Sure.
      Brain injury that prevents consciousness but doesn't seem to impact primary function, maybe.

      But half her brain is gone. What are they preserving, exactly?

    4. Re:Not fully junk by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.

      In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.

      So we're very unlikely to be able thaw her brain and have it work again.

      But that's not the only option. Even in a brain frozen and turned into mush there will still be a lot of information preserved, how do you know that preserved information is insufficient to recreate a human consciousness?

      Remember we're potentially talking about hundreds of years in the future, it's entirely plausible to assume we're talking a full theory of consciousness with nanites and a brains uploaded into computers. Are you really so certain consciousness couldn't be extracted from those brains?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Not fully junk by biff-mo · · Score: 2

      It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.

      So far it has been proven that organs can be cryopreserved and restored to full function. A rabbit kidney was extracted, cryopreserved to liquid N2 temps, re-warmed, and implanted into a living rabbit. It survived solely on that kidney for 48 days until it was euthanized to study the kidney. Physical and biological aspects of renal vitrification

      In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.

      Here's a concept that you may not have heard of before: Information-theoretic death.

    6. Re:Not fully junk by hey! · · Score: 2

      Does it harm you for them to spend their money this way?

      Not directly. Not as an individual. But diverting resources to quackery is bad for society; not so bad in this case that it's high on my list as "health supplements", but not totally benign either.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Not fully junk by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No thanks on the bridge, but perhaps you should consider rereading this part, and remembering how logical OR works:

      " it seems like a super good guess that one of these things will be true:

      1)- Today's cryo patients are forever dead, AND anyone else who dies today and is not preserved is forever dea.
      2)- Today's cryo patients could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech, but anyone else could not be.
      3)- Anyone, living or dead, could be revived in some fashion with some level of tech."

      If you dispute that this is a super good guess, then you are claiming that the logical opposite of this is likely. The logical opposite is that "Today's cryo patients are forever dead, BUT patients who die and are incinerated or buried normally are revivable".

      Is that your belief? If you believe that cryo makes someone LESS likely to be revived than turning them into dust and sprinking the dust in a forest, at least link me some good high level druid spells, k?

      Note: If you merely believe that the odds of cryo patients being revived are the same as standard methods of treating the dead (burying or incineration), and that those odds are ZERO, then you are saying that my "super good guess" is without doubt true, based on the first term.

      Nothing in my post claims that cryo produces revivable patients. But it does dispute the above post, that cryo makes people LESS revivable. That should be trivially bullshit.

    8. Re:Not fully junk by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the money spent on cryogenic freezing were donated to cancer research, more cancers might be treatable by now.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  6. So in 300 years... by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Funny

    After curing the cancer in 25 years, and tthen 275 years later when we figure out how to reanimate frozen brain cells, this kid's going to be like, "What do you mean I'm an orphan?"

    1. Re:So in 300 years... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

      "And didn't anyone think I'd need a body too? A vajayjay and a uterus would have been pretty fun and useful at some point, don'tcha think? WTF people!" May as well just sign her frozen head up on Halloween to be the first shot from the pumpkin chucker into the river. That's about all the fun she's going to have at this point, reanimated or not.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  7. The whole thing is obviously stupid by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    Why did they remove the head? It seems to me the lack of a body is what's going to not get you unfrozen in the future, not the cancer. The cure for cancer is probably a whole lot morel likely lthan any time when we can sucessfully graft a head onto a whole new body, or cause the head to grow one.

    Then of course there's the whole question of why anyone in the future would even want to go to the expense and effort of defrosting and curing you when there's already too many people in the world, and also a whole lot easier and more pleasurable ways of making more should you want to.

    1. Re:The whole thing is obviously stupid by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      More to the point, in my opinion. Even if they could bring you back, and even if there was no need to worry about overpopulation, and even if it were easy and energy an infinite resource. Why would they? Even assuming money means anything, these people are not putting away any money to pay to be brought back, they just pay to be frozen. And along with you they would likely have the ability to raise billions of people from their graves. But I do not see any culture ever believing that it is ethical to raise the long dead back to life just because they can. Abraham Lincoln and Genghis Khan will probably be brought back to life at some time, just for curiosities sake. But some nobody from china in modern times? Never.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  8. Re:Youngest ever? False. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point went whizzing over your head, apparently.

    There have been legislatures that have attempted to pass bills that would have legally set the definition of pi to a set number (or at least implied it). This happened in Indiana in the late 1800s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

  9. Sheesh by AkkarAnadyr · · Score: 3, Funny

    These kids today, with the frozen heads and the music ...

    --

    I bought this house and you know I'm boss
    Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off

  10. Just like modern software by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    Kids these days can't write DNA code that won't suddenly freeze.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  11. Cryonic, not cryogenic, and some thoughts by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    The headline gets it right, but the summary gets it wrong. Does no-one watch QI around here?

    TFS's headline is also a lot better than TFA's:

    The Girl Who Would Live Forever

    Ugh.

    This whole thing strikes me as a little ridiculous, and the fluffy tone of the article really doesn't help.

    The core of Einz’s two-year-old being now rests in cryofreeze in Arizona

    40% of the "core of her being" (80% of the left hemisphere) had already been destroyed during surgery to treat the caner.

    in wait of a cure, and a means to regrow her body.

    By which time, unless they get themselves frozen as well, her parents will be long dead. For that matter, her country and her culture (not that she'll remember much of it, having spent most of her tragically short life in hospitals) will probably be long dead as well.

    Far more likely, I suspect, is that the technology will never come into being at all, or our current procedures will turn out to be so lacking as to make the attempt impossible in her case.

    As harsh as it may sound, and as a non-parent I really have no decent insight into their mindset, I think it might have been best for the parents to say their goodbyes, to grieve properly and learn to do their best to live their lives without their daughter.

    And instead of being frozen in a vault somewhere to await a ressurection that may never happen, her brain could instead have been further studied to aid in the fight against this disease in those still living.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  12. Questionable Science by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    They are still working on better chemical cocktails for cryopreservation. We know we can do this with single-celled organisms and there is some evidence it works on organs as well. It might be questionable science, in that you might pay in and never wake up again, but it isn't really junk science.

    All science is questionable science. That's what makes science distinct from religion.

    It might be a science experiment, but that doesn't make it *medically* sound.

  13. Death ritual by Dereck1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cryonics is basically like any death ritual (cremation, burring, funerals, etc), Its about the (unlikely) hope of some life after death and giving some measure of closure to the living. Sure its extremely unlikely to go anywhere, chances are some bankruptcy, economic collapse or natural disaster is going to destroy the brains/bodies long before technology advances to a point where they can be revived but who cares? If push comes to shove at a minimum we'll have some fairly well preserved bodies/brains in a few decades/centuries for future scientists to study assuming the company goes bankrupt. If we have a major economic collapse these bodies/brains can join a significant portion of humanities other "accomplishments" (fashion, popular culture, modern movies, etc) in decay. And on the long shot maybe these people will give direct witness to the time period in which they lived if it happens to succeed.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion