I must say I disagree that the move from cooling bodies and parts for short periods for medical treatment, to cryogenic suspension, is a 'tiny conceptual leap' - at least, in terms of having justification in reality. Conceptually it's easy to imagine, but I don't think evidence to date supports a near-nth degree extrapolation. What is true at one timescale, one level of biological organization, does not necessarily carry forth to all degrees.

Specifically, I'm thinking of specific properties of the cells of other organisms that DO let them effectively cryo-suspend longer and more easily than humans - and those are very different cell properties than those that make cooling hearts and brains a good idea for treating injuries in humans. It's a different beast, even though both involve and rely on the slowing of molecular motion. Given how little we understand of aging - not just human aging, but things like why you don't find 43-year-old mice, or rhinos breeding before the age of 25 or so - the existence of what amount to biological clocks should be a real concern. Some cells and organisms track time more or less faithfully, and in ways we don't currently understand, and I'm sure it involves much more than molecular motion, but also crucially molecular *action* of specific kinds, at specific rates.

Trying to think mechanistically, some clocks may be counting-up clocks, where activities that effectively track time can be suspended, and I suspect this is what people are thinking of - exclusively. But other clocks can be the counting-down kinds, where a crucial structure, process or relationship needs maintenance or other activity in order to be viable. And while I think knowledge of such things is more than possible, I'm telling you we know something like 1% of how a generic cell works, and humans have something like 200+ cell types in their bodies. The human body has circa 25,000 genes, which crank out hundreds of thousands of RNA products (which are far more active and important than previously thought, and constitute something of a RNA-revolution in molecular biology right now), which in turn lead to well over a million protein products. And untold numbers of RNA and protein products have more than one action, which can be simultaneous or context-dependent.

Even an inkling of combinatorics, combined with the surprising specificity yet flexibility of some cells - much less tissues, organs and organisms - gives some indication of the task ahead, the machinery that must be manipulated with the precision, sensitivity and knowledge of ... I can't even think of an example that begins to capture this. I was going to say a Formula One driver, but the engines and computers and dynamics involved are simple compared to cells. Perhaps the guy who wrote and maintains Linux. Times like a million.

All this to say: we might have a good grasp of the nature of human beings at the conceptual level, at the organismal level, and others - but I don't think we have sufficient grasp of the functional essence human cellular anatomy and physiology to say what is and is not possible to do to cryogenically. There may be real, and major, obstacles of an entirely different kind that are not detectable at our current state of knowledge. And even if we grant the assumption that where there's a will technology will find a way, I don't think it follows that that will and must and should happen. The nature of the biological obstacles may be such that it costs so much (in money, resources, time or effort) that, when put in the context of other goals and concerns, there is insufficient demand to sustain the technology and industry necessary to make cryogenics implementable beyond textbooks. Biology aside, the physical world of the earth and solar system will continue presenting steep challenges to humanity's survival and flourishing for a very, very long time to come. And cryogenics isn't likely to be a tinkering-in-your-garage kind of enterprise.

As it is, in this biologist's judgment, we will see "intelligent" cures to both cancer in total and AIDS (i.e. cures based on knowledge of the nature of each individual's disease, rather than the present birdshot-at-a-barnwall approach to treatment, especially cancer treatment) long before we achieve successful human cryopreservation. Or, should I say, cryo-revival, since that's the verification test for it, and the only aspect that truly matters to someone considering The Big Freeze. And, given my slightly-better-than-amateur knowledge of cancer biology, we will be lucky to see a cure for one common cancer in our present lifetimes.
 

Hi Katie,

Thanks for you excellent comments, you give a good summation of the physiological and biological hurdles that achiving succesful cryogenic preservation will include. I think the difficulties it will face are ones anyone considering such a thing should be very well aware of.

But by 'conceptual leap' I was not referring to a tiny difference in the complexities between simply cooling then warming an organism and 'freezing' then 'thawing' and healing, but between the association among patients, loved ones, and scientists, that cooling now gives more time to heal and therefore 'freezing' (though that term is innacurate since vitrification is solidification without crystalization) now might give more time to cure later. I believe the current predominant cultural-philosophical attitudes about this are very superficial about how good these cooling technologies might be at healing, and once they are thrust into the mainstream light, many many more people will be thrust into situations where they must consider this treatment, and so naturally think about the logical extension of it.

I think you raise other valid points, that, for instance, the rejuvination process might be more expensive than is feasible, but like all technology, wouldnt an operation go through conventional spiraling price reductions through advancements? Even if unreasonably expensive now, it might not be 10 years or 100 years or 1000 years from now. It doesnt matter much at liquid nitrogen temperatures.

Additionally, we routinely vitrify single cells and small groups of cells, and cryonics teams are continually working toward doing the same for large and larger organs. Vitrification and long term storage of viable organs is a holy grail of organ transplant. Alcor's team has successfully vitrified a rabbit kidney, and then warmed and re-implanted it. They are currently reproducing the experiment for peer reviewed publication. Most scientists who deride cryogenic suspension have never even heard of 'vitrification', even though it is a common industrial practice, and so are not at all qualified to speak intelligently on this question, as 'freezing damage' is usually their primary objection.

I understand from your post that you probably dont think very highly of Cryogenic suspension as a viable option, I would ask you to consider the Law of Accelerating Returns especially in regards to considering future predictions of technological growth, as well as the fact that the idea of this technology is very strongly opposed at a philosophical level by the vast majority of people, it is 'cheating' death, 'playing god' etc. Even most objectivists I have argued this with come off making up some imaginary value that death brings (gives meaning to life, life must be limited to be valuable, etc) All of these I beleive come from the psychological tendancy of cultures to make up some reasons and meaning behind death because for some 90,000 years they have had no other possible option to deal with it. Secular nihilsts charge you with being too selfish. Religious people charge you with playing god. I love my life, and I wish to continue living it and enjoying it as long as possible. Maybe these technologies will never work, but being embalmed and buried to rot DEFINATELY will not work. I should like to have intellectually engaging conversations with you a thousand years hence, so I hope you might take another look at the question.
 

Hi Michael,

I'm not philosophically opposed to cryogenics; for the record, I think that people who say one must die in order for anything to have value are mistaken; one must simply be able to die, no matter how long he or she lives. And that's not at issue here. I sincerely doubt one could ever be reconstituted after being vaporized or pulverized or countless other horrific demises. Nor do I think the inherent difficulty in vitrifying humans is necessarily a show-stopper for arguments for cryopreservation ever.

I do think vitrification is problematic and a reasonable show-stopper now because we don't know what we're aiming for. Prior to a knowledge of what cells, tissues, organs and organisms *need* in order to be successfully thawed, present methods are little better than a stab in the dark to try and successfully vitrify people now. Yes, there's loads of good science that can be done this way, but presumably people who are preserved in liquid nitrogen now are not contributing substantially or purposefully for that research (else they would risk, if not ensure, their own permanent demise). I think it's a waste of energy, money, space and hope to be freezing vats of people with no idea how or when to unthaw them. Issues of storage, ethics, experimentation, "re-patriation", and legal continuity are separate, less-essential issues to this discussion, but all bear on the reasonableness of choosing to cryopreserve oneself.

It's like stocking your house with a year's worth of canned food "just in case." Unless you can rationally (not rationalistically) and realistically answer "in case of what?" there is no reason *not* to stock your house with a hundred years' worth of food, or live in a titanium bunker a mile underground. On the premise that one's life is so important that one doesn't want to be caught unawares and unprepared, having a worry in place of a constructive purpose drains one of the value one seeks to protect: a productive, constructive, positive life of achievement (however one concretizes that).

The purpose of life for humans, broadly speaking, is *not* to survive; the purpose of life is to *live*, and surviving is a necessary but *not* sufficient condition for that. Absent real, inductive evidence that cryopreservation holds real promise for actually furthering - and not hindering - one's life here and now, it's has the very real potential to be as draining of life as a neurotic obsession. And I mean that literally, not condescendingly. To surrender countless opportunities for *actually* living your life healthfully and happily here and now, for or because of a gargantuan What If, is degrading to what it means to be human. Absent real promise, based in observation at every turn, it represents an existential sacrifice motivated and justified by a string of deductions from seeming-proof, with a failure to ground in reality at each cognitive step.

I see this as a weaker variant of the cognitive mis-steps that characterize well-meaning, hard-thinking theists. They have epistemologically undercut themselves at one or more key points (explicitly and purposefully, or implicitly and accidentally), and so find themselves inevitably opposed to reality, to life on earth here and now. Yet they are happy because they think they are right, that they are pursuing real values and efficaciously using their minds (on the most generous interpretation). But they have sacrificed reality broadly, and their Life specifically, and don't know it or won't believe it, even as they find themselves arguing against this-worldly here-and-now success in favor of a trusted abstraction with delayed, unspecified pay-offs that must occur - to their trusted knowledge and faith - "somehow", "somewhere", "at some time". It's existentially vacuous no matter how cognitively compelling.

So too, I see, with with the hype surrounding cryopreservation; the red-flag waving in my mind is the inefficient, pointless, "idealistic" socking away of resources and energies, and inversion of priorities - privately or corporately or societally - that are in defiance of existing knowledge and real challenges and known fact. In my view, the present state of knowledge doesn't justify such action as cryopreserving bodies, and holds out a false hope of future value at the expense of present value, and in a dangerously unspecified manner.

There is no evidence that it *does* work; there is only trust and hope and expectation that it *will* work. Just a little better than heaven, I say, and that's not good enough. I have a life to live. And it is only in people doing *that* that the idea of cryo-preservation has any hope of being a science and not science fiction. That is, I think it is irrational to even try to vitrify bodies (since we don't know how to do it properly) prior to knowing how to unvitrify them. And by the time we know that, we'll probably have obviated much of the motivation to vitrify our bodies in the first place. So: fans of cryopreservation should throw their hopes, interests and money into cell biology research, which *will* have pay-offs in one's own lifetime. I can think of other perks, but I'll leave them aside now.

And there's one other thing motivating my nay-saying. I take issue with the Law of Accelerating Returns and with overly optimistic extrapolations in scientific progress because these types of generalizations obscure, by their presentation and thrust and application, a key ingredient that is NOT given in any human endeavor: the vagarities of human choice. The LAR treats history as if humanity were some sort bank account of knowledge that had a low but reliable compound interest rate. It appears not to acknowledge - as possibility or historical fact - the very real crash in knowledge, life-expectancy, and quality of life that accompanied the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Christian Dark Ages. Life tanked, and humans are wholly responsible for it. The facts of human nature that permitted that as an existential possibility can never, ever be glossed over.

While progress is probable, it is *not* a given. A very sober assessment of present culture is extremely necessary when considering an issue that depends *crucially* on the free choice and action of (literally) uncountable people over a truly unspecifiable period of time. Why invest now in preserving your unknown peri-death potential when you can't say how long you'll be frozen, how much it will cost, and whether the social and economic laws and conventions - not to mention sufficiently shared values - are likely to exist at the time when knowledge and technology reach the level of advancement desired by (an indisposed) you? What rational formula for investment is possible apart from "More, more, more?" There is no way to gauge it.

And all at what cost to you *now*, in a life and youth and health you *already* have?
 

Thanks again for your comments Katie.

I understand you concerns regarding what we don’t know about the structure and requirement of cells to work after thawing, but keep in mind that vitrification is solidification *without* crystallization. Why are we presuming there is structural damage to the cell, in an optimal scenario simply all molecular motion is slowed and then stopped. Additionally, as I cited, the Alcor team has vitrified a rabbit kidney and successfully re-implanted it. The current vitrification processes have other issues, and to vitrify a structure as large as a whole human body requires too much of a cryoprotectant to be injected which causes toxic damage of it’s own, but they claim the nueropreserveration process achieves vitrification.

You seem to be saying, essentially, that since we don’t know exactly how to make vitrification work *now* than it is worthless to undergo any kind of cryogenic preservation, yet we can make probabilistic assessments, look at technological growth trends, and basically make bets on the continual progress of human society. To wait until a full organism is vitrified, stored, thawed, and revived before undergoing cryogenic preservation is a bit like waiting until a human has flown before we try to fly, or a man has walked on the moon before we try to build a rocket to get there. You seem to be saying “well, we just don’t know if it will ever work” That’s true, we don’t, but it does not violate any laws of physics, nor does it, I think, violate any logical common sense. We know enough to know that life is a process, and personal identity is a pattern and process, and that these process relate to molecular arrangements and processes, slowing down these processes to a stand still

I think it’s a waste of potential human lives to be burying or burning recently deceased humans. Their life is a process; put it on hold until we can figure it out why the process stopped and then revive them.

I don’t think your analogy of stocking your house ‘just in case’ is valid. I think a more accurate analogy is wearing your seatbelt. Life is full of risk and enjoying life is always a balance at some point between enjoyment and mitigating risk. I won’t be solo rock climbing anywhere anytime soon, but that does not mean I am a cowered who is afraid of living. We all weigh our benefits and risks and act accordingly, most people do so irrationally, driving a few extra miles to go to an organic food store, for instance. But living in a state of fear and cowering in a bunker is not at all the same thing as being cryogenically preserved after death, how is it? One throttles your life, and takes away the joy and meaning possible to life, the other has virtually no effect on the act of living. Why compare the two?

I agree with you on your assessment of the purpose of life, and have said the same thing many times when discussing this with objectivists. The literal mechanistic process of life is *not* the highest value of a being of rational self interest and a real set of values, because they would be more than willing to give up the things that contribute to a ‘good’ life for the sake of their mechanistic existence, the logical extension of such behavior is indeed the cowering manipulative fool in the cave. But the literal mechanistic process of life is obviously a necessary requirement of being able to live a ‘good’ eudaemonic life of value and goal seeking. I think you base much of your objections on the level you perceive cryogenic preservation would hinder your life. How would it? Today you can merely take out an insurance policy and use that to pay for the preservation. Perhaps you’re next of kin will be pissed at you for being so selfish, but that doesn’t speak to me as a quality of life issue, if they loved me they would respect my choice, I do not exist merely as a means to gain them money. I would much rather see my parents cryogenically preserved than to get some measily sum of cash for their death, they are much more valuable to me. I also don’t see where you make the connection to a neurotic obsession, one does not need to do anything to prepare for cryogenic preservation except die, I attended the Alcor conference last year and the strongest sentiment I took from it was how much I thouroughly enjoyed being around people that literally and fully loved their lives, it was one of the most emotionally invigorating experiences I have had. There were no cowards, there were artists, engineers, pilots, mechanics, all sorts, I saw no neurotics, this characterization is like the one objectivists routinely face as being indifferent obnoxious bastards. It’s not based in reality. What are the countless opportunities you would be surrendering? I just don’t get at all where you are getting this perception from. Do you think my behavior is different because I want to be cryogenically preserved? It’s no different than merely loving life and mitigating unnecessary risk, which I would do regardless of desiring cryogenic preservation. I ride a motorcycle and love it, but I wear my helmet and do particular practices to increase my skills. I won’t be climbing mount everest anytime soon as I do not feel I need to *risk* my life in order to enjoy it. You wear your seatbelt even though it is a bit uncomfortable, you slow down even though you are late for work, you have health insurance in case you get sick, should I consider you as a coward fearing every microbe and virus like a true neurotic, giving up many opportunities to really live because of your fear of getting sick?

There is *now* real inductive evidence that cryogenic preservation holds real promise. It’s obvious from all fields of science, it violates no laws of physics, and real and continual progress is being made today. What would convince you of it’s promise, a cryogenically preserved and then revived animal, say a mouse?

I think you have a serious misconception of the people who are interested in this and the kind of lives they enjoy, I also cant help but think that you have a psychological predilection to just want to think this is not a good idea, why is that? What quality of life will this truly destroy? I don’t know what expense of present value this comes as.

You are right, there is no evidence that it *does* work, but there is every reasonable expectation to think it might work in the future, the advantage being that it doesn’t matter, biologically, how long it takes to accomplish this.

Just a ‘little’ better than heaven? Come on Katie. What chance does heaven have of existing? A big fat zero, or perhaps a 1 with a million zeroes in front of it. Yet we have already cryogenically preserved whole organs and re-transplanted them, and physically there is no reason to ever think it won’t work. What chance does it have? It’s at least a non-zero one, which heaven sure isn’t, and at best 10% – 50%. We cant predict the future, so we cant know for sure.

If you would suggest that I am a neurotic person afraid of living and enjoying life, I would counter that you are an evasive person afraid of dealing with the full logical consequences of what it means to uphold your highest value. You *want* to believe this wont work and let that guide your opinions far more than I *want* to believe it will work and let that guide mine.

You cite all these quality of life issues that I have no idea where they are even coming from, We do many things in life based on the premise that it might work, perhaps this is a psychological predilection of mine that differs strongly from you, I have taught myself to weld, do composite construction, metal working, and metal casting all because I am designing and building a motorcycle. Every step of the way I ask myself in moments of doubt, am I crazy, can I do this? And every time I answer, it’s ridiculous to demand proof that you can do something before you attempt it, because you can never truly know if you can not unless you actually try it and fail. Similarly do you demand proof that you will pass a test before you study for it? Do you demand proof you will arrive somewhere safely before you travel there? You operate on a reasonable supposition in both cases, and so do I with regard to cryogenic preservation.

Unvitrifying a body is easy, you slowly warm it. I don’t understand your objection on that point. I do agree with you that proponents of cryogenic preservation should support cell biology research, should I ever become as wealthy as I hope to be I will throw a ton of money specifically at these things. But none of that does any good for a person who has just died. Donating their life insurance to a cellular biology institute won’t bring them back, it won’t revive them. Cryogenic preservation might. Being buried definitely will not.

I think also you make a valid objection to the Law of Accelerating Returns, I do however think that the kind of civilization collapse we saw at the end of the Roman Empire becomes ever less likely the more diverse and plentiful our information stores are, it is however a valid concern and one of the organizations I support seeks to put procedures in place to mitigate this kind of risk as well.

Furthermore, I agree with you explicitly on your concerns of cultural trends, this is something that Alcor acknowledges and even the simple task of keeping the money you have contributed into sustaining your preservation through decades, through changes of ownership, etc, are things that are complex and are failing points as well.

I never rely wholly on other people to accomplish what I want to see done, I hope to build enough wealth to actively combat many of these things, I hope to have a family with strong life loving and life affirming values that will be far more likely to perpetuate my preservation and ultimately revive me, I hope to see a world that will not collapse into a murderous dark age, I hope to work to mitigate existential threats from celestial events and global catastrophes, etc. I draw all of my values and hopes out to their farthest logical conclusions and act accordingly. I hope to never have to even be cryogenically preserved; I hope we may slow the debilitating effects of aging enough to give people of my generation time enough to cure aging all together.

What cost is this to me *now* ? None negative, I work very hard every minute of the day to start my manufacturing company, working through an iteriative list of goals and accomplishments, each one valuable of its own, but each one promulgating each of my values to a greater degree. But if I fall at all else I will at least be wealthy and live an enjoyably productive life running my own company. If I fail at even that I will be proud that I did my best and lived a productive life according to my deepest values. I do not lament missed opportunities of sitting around and playing video games. And the further I progress in this list the closer I will come to bringing about the world I desire to see. Such is the path I think anyone ought to pursue who legitimately follows the logical conclusion of their own highest values.

Ultimately it seems like your biggest objection is that this is detrimental to your current life, I don't see that though, and no one I know who is signed up for cryogenic preservation lives in a way that could be described like that. I think your idea of how detrimental it is to your current life is incorrect. Can you give me some concretizations of this?
 

Hi Michael,

As online conversations of this sort go, it's getting a bit unwieldy, so I'll swap both eloquence and completeness for a crack at part of the issue. Part I:

I'm quite aware of the difference between vitrification and actual freezing, re: crystallization. I learned comparative animal physiology from a temperature adaptation physiologist who specialized in antifreeze capabilities in various animals (fish and insects of various sorts, among other things). Thawing an adequately vitrified organism is easy; you just heat it up gradually. That's not to say you just have to warm up a well-preserved/thermo-kinetically suspended organism; there may be necessary recovery ("reboot") processes needed to get cells back functioning normally. Also, I am skeptical of methods to supercool without actually freezing (crystallizing). These organisms that can survive very cold temperatures without freezing, and later revive and carry on, have specific cellular adaptations for this, and I expect them to be quite complex. Like, you can't just splice in the antifreeze genes and presto! vitrified humans that are good for an indefinite period of time. Toxicity would be first in a long line of concerns, and you mention that Alcor has experienced this difficulty with whole-organism vitrification.

I expect many of the naturally evolved antifreeze mechanisms come with an expiration date of sorts. Some critters are good for a few weeks, or a season, or a few years. I expect even fewer critters and natural means of vitrification are good for decades, much less centuries. Supercool something for too long, and it's not going to revive 100%. And "too long" is system-dependent. Vitrify a caterpillar with its evolved (i.e. very well functioning) means of vitrification, and how it comes out on the other end depends on the time. A week might be as good as a month, but if you cool and warm over the course of a single day, or you leave it cold for 50 years, it might make a big difference depending on the nature of that species of caterpillar. Even working within the optimal vitrification duration for a species, if you use a different method (i.e. a beetle's method in a caterpillar) you may well get very different results.

I suspect the natural longevity (different from life expectancy) of the organism/species in question also plays a big role. It's not unreasonable to hypothesize that reanimating a mouse after 50 years of vitrification by method X will have different consequences for the mouse's health than doing the same to a tortoise or a parrot (presuming no differences in reaction for being a mammal vs a reptile vs a bird). There's a considerable body of literature that shows human longevity - the number of years (approximately) humans as a species *can* live - has not changed for millennia, if not tens of thousands of years. Same for many, many other species. This suggests the existence of complex and robust cellular and physiological processes that hinder facile tinkerings with longevity. Yes, human life expectancy has skyrocketed in the last two centuries, and the percentage of people exploring that upper range of longevity has vastly increased. But we don't just see a rightward shift in the longevity curve - with regular old-age records set in the 125, 135, 145 ranges. Instead we see an increased piling up of old people at the 70-120 age range. Yes, I think technology and medicine have a lot to offer and can do wonders and are highly praise-worthy. But I don't think by dint of these industries' existence these factual observations can be treated as all but solved and ultimately infinitely manipulable, and I take strong suspicion of any endeavor that glosses over these facts as natural growing pains that will inevitably be overcome by scientists "somehow" at "sometime". (This pertains to my previous point about not treating human choice as a given, whether as individuals, groups, corporations, industries or societies).

And how ever would you test this? It would literally take decades, if not a couple centuries (all else equal). And inasmuch as naturally-evolved capabilities provide a smart template from which to work, a first estimate of the range and kinds of solutions possible, and also exemplify the standard to meet (complete integration and compatibility with the organism's inherited nature and other functions), looking to existing, evolved examples is not a bad place to start when thinking about the problem.

So why all the sciencey objections? You said, "To wait until a full organism is vitrified, stored, thawed, and revived before undergoing cryogenic preservation is a bit like waiting until a human has flown before we try to fly, or a man has walked on the moon before we try to build a rocket to get there." I'm distinctly saying that you need a rocket before you can walk on the moon, a plane before you can fly. The goal to walk on the moon or to fly motivates the actions necessary to achieve it - and the action is most rationally funneled into making it happen, generating the means to achieve it, and not figuring out how to wait long enough for someone else to do it.

The factual objections are not directed at a "it can't be done, no way ever" conclusion, but a fleshing out of the short-term hurdles such a technology faces, and so the reasonableness of planning to cryopreserve oneself *now* (in our generation). If one is to rationally plan long-term, one needs some grasp of the short- and medium-term, which is precisely where I see the cryopreservation stuff bottoming out. One can hope long-term. But if one is to rationally plan long-term, those plans need to be concrete and based on relevant information at the relevant scales. I see the information utilized in present pro-cryopreservation arguments as strongly handicapped in issues of scalability, complexity, known facts to date (and that's just in science, not in ethics or politics or law).

I therefore extremely doubt the soundness of the conclusion that cryopreservation (at the end of *my* present life) is the natural and rational course of action for anyone who highly values their life. How am I to plan long-term around that? I might as well start planning for a summer home on Pluto as well, as by the same logic there's no reason to think it's not an possibility for science, and if I can just manage to wait around long enough (by the good graces of all those faceless, nameless, countless people who will come after me and inevitably do better and better as I expect them to do) anything is possible to me, and inasmuch as I value my life, why not aim for the stars?

To have a human second life, you'd need to ensure much more than survival, and I don't see any treatment, any concern or mention for those variables - things like Why would you live? You'll have presumably lost all the context that made life *worth* living previously. Career, loved ones, property, health. What would you do for a living? With what resources would you live? Why would anyone employ you? All your knowledge is staggeringly obsolete.

Even if the society you're revived into is perfectly benevolent, of what value is a recently undead obsolete person to them? One might be useful as a living historian, but all technical skill, expertise, property, and relationships one had before are gone. One probably wouldn't even know how to use the new toilets. What if you don't speak the language? You certainly won't know the customs or recent history. You can't talk or relate to anyone, so the primary human means of communication and connection is gone. How do you make friends? How do you get a job? What do you do for a living? How do you advance a line of creative work? With what resources? And for what end? The odds of you being able to do what you did before are next to nothing. Why would anyone want to hire you? Befriend you? Sleep with you? Of what deep and lasting value are you to anyone, apart from novelty? Value doesn't just reappear with a heartbeat. Why (for what) would you live?

And how do you ensure or control the transference of your property and will through unspecifiable and unmanageable time, social values, legal custom, and whatnot? One's body and prospective *life*, and the conditions of that life, are ultimately dependent on the goodwill and integrity of others. As I said, and as you agreed with, survival is not thriving. Simply put, there are many circumstances of surviving that I would not want to survive. Having a terminal illness rife with unmanageable pain is not something I consider worth suffering through, simply to live a little longer. Should I ever find the ultimate person for me, I can imagine circumstances where loss of that person drains all meaning and luster from my life, so that while I survive, I am not living. I need a reason to live, and it's not just being alive. All those reasons would be long gone on the present cryopreservation forecast. More pessimistically, one has no way to ensure one is revived in a favorable context. What if you are into a truly horrible social/cultural milieu without the freedom and independence to just walk out, or even to kill yourself? Say you are revived to be a slave. Is it always better to be alive? I think context matters. After thawing, all you'd have is your body and brain - important, but I'd be hard pressed to think how that's sufficient on an n-years timescale, given the unmanageable vagarities of human choice and social trends.

I think one can reasonably plan for the next 50-100 years, give or take, and reasonably forecast social values such that dying, being vitrified, and being reanimated in the 50-100 year timeframe is (all else equal) a reasonable risk. But I don't think we can currently, reasonably plan for the next 200, much less 1000 years. I think one has to take entirely too much on faith to justify such action. And for that reason I think it is unreasonable. When considering cryopreservation, one doesn't just weigh life (after cryopreservation) vs. death after a potentially prematurely truncated life. As a fully functioning adult (presumably) one is weighing survival in a potential but ultimately unspecifiable beneficial future context against both permanent death (bad, but you don't suffer what you don't live and can't have) and survival in a potential but ultimately unspecifiable (and so unmanagable) malevolent future context involving suffering. Both the good outcome, and one of the bad outcomes, is dependent on people.


If it's a value to you, you should be willing to work for it. We are not today entitled to the achievements of people tomorrow. Any such capitalizations on other people's work must offer them an equal value in return. This is a major risk in the whole cryopreservation plan that I'll get to later.


---

More later, if desired. I still haven't gotten explicitly to the issues you raise in the last half of your recent post.
 

Hi Katie,

Thanks again for your comments. I think the conversations has become unweldly in part due to my non-compartmentalized response. I’ll try to stay on track and address specific points. Also please feel free to post your other response.

Complexity
Let me start by saying that although I am not as aware of all the specific complexities in the cell related to vitrification or crystallization absolutely no part of me thinks that, even remotely, this will be an easy or simple task. I think you might be under the impression that I think this is easy, it is not the case at all. I think defeating aging, and being able to repair and revive a cryogenically suspended patient, will probably be the *hardest* things humans will ever accomplish, In the scale of the complexity and the understanding required, and in the form of the materials which will perform the repairs. I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes too complex for individuals and will requires expert AI systems to accomplish. Just wanted to be clear that I am under no impressions that humanity achieving this will be easy or simple. I am fond of pointing out even the simplest cell is more complex than a whole galaxy or cluster of galaxies (excluding of course the cells that reside with those galaxies) Yes Alcor has experienced many difficulties with whole organism vitrification, in fact it started off as nothing *but* difficulties but they continually make salient progress all the time. That is the nature of progress, its not as if they are finding it more and more difficult the harder they try. Quite the opposite, they recently patented a super cooled perflrouracarbon pump which delivers cryprotectant directly into the lungs, wither their large surface area, while simultaneously delivering it through major arteries, and cooling externally.

Biologically evolved suspension
Having said that, I don’t think listing off complexities and difficulties involved in accomplishing this is sufficient reason to abandon all hope, nor do I think the complexities involved when combined with the other factors you mention (cultural, political, and economic changes) is still enough to force one to not consider cryogenic suspension, but I’ll address those points later.

As for expiration dates on evolved anti-freeze mechanisms, if the organisms are affected by the length of time in deep freeze, than they must have metabolic process still operating. But these dependencies are irrelevant with regard to liquid nitrogen temperatures. Molecular interactions are not just slowed, they are completely stopped. There is not even enough thermal activation energy present for any reactions to occur. The only difference 1 year or 1,000 years would have at liquid nitrogen temperatures is the damage from background radiation and the difficulties it would cause when reviving is attempted.

Frankly I see as little connection between the limitations between biologically evolved mechanisms for dealing with cold temperatures and mimetically evolved technological methods in humans as I would between evolved mechanisms for flight and technological mechanisms for turbine engines and ion drives. Its akin to saying “flight is not possible beyond a certain speed because the thrust imparted by the wing of a bird cant get out of the way of incoming air fast enough once it reaches 45 mph” Well, we don’t have to build aircraft with flapping wings, and we don’t have to achieve vitrification and cryogenic suspension with *only* existing evolved mechanisms to do so. Actually I think they will play a very small role, doing much more to just conceptually introduce people to the idea of ‘suspension’ than to provide new insights and means to achieve it in humans, though no doubt some value may be gained from their study.

Aging
I am well aware of the differences between average life expectancy and maximum potential life span, currently the only known method for extending the maximum potential life span beyond that 120 year mark is through a caloric restriction with optimal nutrition diet, something very hard to achieve in practice, but something that has been verified on just about every animal it has been tested on, from water flees to chimpanzees (Richard Weindrich at the WIsconson Primate Research Center has been conducting an ongoing test of the diet on Chimpanzees for about 10 years now, and preliminary results are in line with the results from all other animals tested, I have exchanged a few emails with him) This upper age limit is likely related to the telemoreres at the end of our DNA strands, once a cell has been copied 50 times, it no longer copies. These were thought to have evolved to minimize the development of cancers, but as a consequence also produce an upper limit on life spans. But this is just one of the myriad of complex scenarios which relate to the process of aging. It is thought that one mechanism by which the CRON diet reduces the physiological rate at which aging occurs, is by activating the SIR II gene, which is thought to be an environmentally stressed caused DNA repair mechanism, it appears to temporarily copy telomere chains while it is activated, thus extending the life span by extending the number of divisions before which a cell will no longer divide. Permanently activating the SIR II gene would probably increase maximum potential life spans by up to 50%, but might also significantly increase the rate at which cancers develop. Many pharmaceutical companies are looking for compounds which mimic the effect to some degree of a CRON diet. Recently a Harvard biologist found a startling effect from the strangely named compound Resverestrol, which also appears to activate the SIR II gene. Well fed, overweight, and under exercised mice when fed large amounts of resverestrol were healthier and had few incidents of cancer than fit, lean mice of the same age. This compound is present in some red wines, usually ones grown in cold climates, and is thought to plat at least some part in the “French Paradox” (that French people consume as many calories and fats and smoke more but have lower rates of cancer and heart disease) If this compound proves effective in people, regular doses of it would increase the average human life expectancy, but might also increase the maximum potential human life expectancy, shifting the curve right a few years. Biologist Aubrey de Grey has attempted to categorize and develop strategies to combat each major contributor to the debilitative effects of aging, working explicitly toward a goal which he calls engineered negligible senescence. He outlines this goal and the major factors contributing to aging, and the psychological stumbling blocks, you can see this all in any of the numerous videos of his lectures. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llvP-7XgTEE

The problem is, the root causes of aging are not typically the same things current disease research combats, and the only gains we make in aging are small consequential ones from other research. Also, philosophically, the majority of people still implicitly support aging, which obviously comes from having to psychologically deal with it for 90,000 years, but now that mental block is a huge stumbling block. We need a massive and explicit effort to combat and defeat aging, now. I hope to accumulate enough wealth to help this effort.

Testing
I am not clear on your testing question, are you asking how are we to test how long time spans effect a vitrified body? Once again, I do not think it is necessary to show in the laboratory a clear example now of reviving a vitrified human body in order to think that cryogenic suspension is a viable option. Neuro preservation, after all, suspends only the head and brain of a patent, and clearly we do not possesses the technology right now to re-attach a severed head. But we are able to re-attach severed fingers before we were able to re-attach severed hands, and hands before arms, etc. Similarly, we are able to indefinitely store gamete cells, and we were able to do that before we could store clumps of cells. Now we can store clumps of cells indefinitely, and as shown in Alcor’s research and publications, are well on our way to being able to store, and use afterwards full organs. The progression to me is obvious, simple, and logical.

Need a rocket before going to the moon
Which leads into your other objections, re: needing a rocket before you can go to the moon. Of course that is the case, but that analogy is very limited. We are not talking about me setting out in a space craft hoping somebody invents a landing system before I reach the moon. In that case, I am alive hear and now, and setting out on a course which will likely include my death. In both cases I am making assessments about the future of technological growth, but in one case my life NOW depends on it’s outcome, on the other, the outcome is irrelevant to my life NOW, but might be very relevant to my life in the future. What you are saying is that you need to revive a human before you can consider undergoing suspension, but why? The other cases you give as examples are limited in their applicability because this is the *only* case where you are dealing with the perpetuation of your own existence. That’s not a factor to consider when you say you need a rocket to go to the moon. I cant even think of an appropriate analogy in that context. Perhaps making accurate measurements of basins on the moon because you think one day there will be rockets to go there?

As I am sure you know by now, I am all about helping to bring this about. I would be happy to never even have to consider cryogenic suspension, if aging was defeated by then anyway. My whole life is focused on a series of goals which revolve around this and other related things. But if it not successful, then heck yeah I am going to figure out a way to wait long enough for that to be figured out. At liquid nitrogen temperature no molecular or biological changes occur over time spans of thousands of years. So I can wait a while.

Not a rational choice now
Your subsequent paragraph seems to be arguing that essentially this is not a rational choice to make right now when properly considering the complexities involved. That’s fine, if that is your conclusion, obviously I disagree with it. Any choice like this involves a benefit cost analysis, what is the likelihood of success versus how much time, effort, and money does it require now. If you think no one will every figure out how to revive a cryogenically suspended person, than clearly its not rational ever to consider it. If you don’t think anyone will figure it out until about 100,000 years, well, you might want to reconsider, since at LN2 temperatures that time span is irrelevant. But, if it takes a considerable portion of your life now to prepare for that, and you think the chance is low, obviously you wouldn’t consider it. You seemed to hit on this issue a lot in your previous post, which you didn’t elaborate on yet in this one (possibly you were planning to in your follow up) However, as I have said, the impact on the quality of life this has for me is minimal. We are just talking about a regular life insurance policy, some $3 per week for me, which I would get regardless of a cryogenic suspension account.

But come now Katie, a house on Pluto does not in any way shape or form pertain to the question of the continuation of your existence. Only one thing does right now in this context, and that’s cryogenic suspension. You should be aware of and pay attention to where possible long term trends may benefit you, or harm you. Cryogenic suspension to me is not a dependency on future people enslaving their efforts to me, but a rational long term projection of current scientific trends. Just like I might invest in technologies which are not in large scale use now, but probably will be in the future. The better the mind, the longer the range. I am merely looking at existing scientific and technological trends, extending them out, and considering that one day these people may have figured this out.

Why would you live?
Your next statements are objections familiar to advocates of cryogenic suspension and life extension. I think you should read more into the area, and think deeply on these questions on your own too. But I’ll give some quick answers to them on my thoughts. I would want to live because I love my life, living, and the things it enables me to do. As we established before, our highest value is not the mere mechanistic process of existence, but in fact a particular kind of life, a good life, or a eudaimonic life, which I strive for. But our mechanical existence is a pre-requisite for achieving a good life, we must first be alive before we can strive to make our life good. Only when we have made a bad living life have we corrupted our prioritization of values. What context will I have lost? My home? My fancy possessions? My friends? To paraphrase Rand, the productive intelligent man doesn’t need to be handed these things, he can create and earn them in any rational or semi rational society. I will make new friends, build a new home and life. The first sunrise I experience after a possible rejunivation will have made all of it worthwhile, regardless of what I have lost, I will always retain the possibility of a good life. When you are born, you are born in the world the same way you say cryogenic patients will be revived, with nothing and knowing no one. Adopted children suffer the same fate but with the extra burden of consciousness over the infant. They do not cower in fear and immediately commit suicide, they make new friends, build new loves, and live.

Health? It is likely that any technology which could revive a cryogenically suspended patient can also cure health ailments of age and disease. You would not be revived as a 115 year old and live that way indefinitely. You might be revived and then undergo rejunivation therapy, or just revived with a young and health body. What would I do for a living? I don’t know, I’ll figure that out when the time comes. What resources would I live with? Again, I’ll figure that out when the time comes, worse case scenario is I’ll do neither and just die again, no harm done then. Why are these reasons to never consider suspension? Do you know for sure you would be condemned to death upon revival? Why would they have revived you in the first place? If you look into the writers on this subject you will find reams of discussions surrounding this all ready, but I will not try to *prove* any of these before I consider the possibility, proving what life will be like at that time is nearly impossible. Of what value is a recently indeed and ‘obsolete’ person to them? I believe such a society will have likely conquered aging, and subsequently predominately philosophical social and psychological trends will have changed a great deal to one placing a very high value, almost intrinsic, on the life of sentient beings. If you could bring back your lost loved one, would you? Even if she was ‘obsolete’ and ‘useless’? I sure as hell would. I will likely have living decendants who may be interested in helping me acclimate to this new society, or a charitable organization which undertakes this task might ‘adopt’ me, who knows? Or maybe they will be able to download into my mind instantly all new skills I might require to live in that society. David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman, spoke at the last Alcor conference on this very topic, it was quite interesting. None of these objections are news to people who consider these things. You lastely wrote “Of what deep and lasting value are you to anyone, apart from novelty?” Why would it matter to me what value I was to all these *other* people? If I was revived, I was obviously of some value, beyond that, my own life and value is not dependant on being valued by another person. That’s rather 2nd handed.

All of these objections, are, I think, rather superficial. And here you seem to be choosing against cryogenic suspension because of what you think the future world might be like, while simultaneously chiding me for choosing for cryogenic suspension because of what a future world might be like. Either you can make assessments based on the distant future or not.

Thriving vs surviving.
I think we stand on the same footing regarding the difference between thriving and surviving. Although I don’t think you should place so much on the well being of your own existence to make it wholly dependant on the existence of another human being. I can’t imagine the terrible pain and suffering one would face when losing the love of ones life, but I hope to have formed enough of a independent valuation of life to not let that rob me of any purpose in life, although it would be devastating, I would still want to live, and hopefully meet someone else who might mean as much to me. To have a reason to live, you must first be alive. Why, for what, do you live for now? Why would that ‘for what’ be any different in the future? You would still be a sentient being with values to pursue or lose, regardless of the time and settings. I could list out a thousand things I would want to do, and a dozen I would want to live for, but I can’t convince you of the meaning and purpose of your own existence. I don’t even weight your pessimistic conditions as even possible, let alone likely. Cryonicists hear that all the time what if you are revived as slaves? What if you are revived than eaten! What if you are revived and the world is horrible! None of the scenarios seem likely or plausible with current societal trends, more people live in freedom than ever before, and more people live with a higher standard of living than ever before, it is likely that these trends would have continued should someone bother to cryogenically revive me in the future. What if I am revived as a turtle? What if I am revived in a torture chamber? Are these metaphysically highly implausible scenarios really worth even considering? I don’t think so, in any case, I could just kill myself. Ah, perhaps they’ll revive me in a machine that won’t let me move enough to tear out my corroted artery, and tortue me for eons! Come on Katie. I’d expect such objections from a dystopian nihilist. Not from you.

Personally, I dont think it would take more than 100 years to achieve this, given current scientific and cultural trends, and considering the incredible advancements from 1800 – 1900 compared to 1900-2000. So to me, it is a reasonable bet to make. You are right of course, it is dependant on people, I will attempt to influence these as much as I can, but the good outcome vs the bad outcome will tend to reflect what you think people will ultimately be, good or pad.

Ultimately, I think this generation or one near to this one is on the cusp of controlling the direction that cultures and societies will tend to take, all of the technological political and scientific variables are reaching a heightened level where the average person will be forced to come to an opinion on these topics with profound philosophical implications. Ultimately, it will be up between the regressive or stagnate nihilists, whether religious in their opposition to ‘playing god’ or secular in their opposition to ‘tampering with nature’ and the progressive growth orientated intelligent life loving people, whether hedonist transhumanists or eudaimonic objectivists (like me =P ). Should the former control the fate of cultures, we will regress into sustenance agriculture with brutal over arching social engineers ruling every aspect of our lives, ultimately dying in whatever cataclysmic event (whether calderic volcano eruption, asteroid impact, or global pathogen) they lacked the ability to forsee or desire to combat. Should the latter take charge of the fate of sentient life, the former will be left alone to their chosen demise, and the rest will spread out among the stars, living indefinitely long life spans, come to love and highly value life, even to such an extent they would revive people who were cryogenically suspended. If the former win, I’ll never be revived anyway, no matter how many cultural and legal precautions I attempt to make.

These fundamentally competing ideologies are manifested everywhere. We can build buildings, but not too tall, and not too many of them. We can use energy to make our lives better, but not too much, don’t be selfish. When can make progress in science, but not too much, and no messing with nature or playing god. We can cure diseases and ailments, but not all of them, not aging. We can live long lives, but not too long, no cheating death. Many people hold both of these competing ideologies to some degree, and so answer these questions in contradictory ways. Currently, the mainstream culture, both scientific and laymen, is fundamentally pro aging and pro death. That mainstream philosophical attitude is the *first* thing that must be changed if we ever want to see aging defeated and cryogenic suspension become viable. We must work to ensure the continuation technological based intelligent life, mitigating against new dark ages and global catastrophes. Personally, I combine these goals with my love of technology and invention today, as I said previously, so this is no detrimental quality of life issue for me, my life is a goal orientated productive life now, and always will be, no matter how many and which goals I ultimately achieve, I will forever strive for them.
 

I think that is a very poor decision Marzio, and I am sorry you are a catholic, because it is wishful thinking from that which is leading you to consider ending this life, the only one you will ever have, for an imaginary world where you are re-united with your loved ones. That is not going to happen, nothing will, you will cease to exist.

If you are a catholic, isn’t suicide a sin anyway? So you would not be re-united, but instead would go to hell. I understand though, if you literally believe in heaven, in a place full of happiness and a reunion with everyone you ever loved, and thousands of new family members who you never met who will no doubt love you, wouldn’t every rational person want to leave this earth, full of pain and difficulties, for that paradise? As one of the most inspirational people in my life wrote, if she believed in heaven she would kill herself instantly to be re-united with the only person she ever loved. Isn’t it convenient then that established religions manage to forbid suicide as one of the greatest sins? Knowing they are preaching eternal bliss, they must come up with a reason for people to not seek that eternal bliss immediately. So they are dammed to hell. It's all very convenient, and all very indistinguishable from no heaven and no hell and no eternal damnation.

I was not indoctrinated with atheism, I studied the world and those questions on my own in great depth, there is simply no evidence which suggests as a simplest explanation some all powerful personal god is involved in life. Have you examined all religions and come to Catholicism? Or did you grow up with it?

I cant give you any words of advice to convince you to love life and living, frankly I have a hard time understanding how anyone could ever *not* love living. But from your posts you are clearly lonely and often very upset, being like that isn’t going to make you attractive to a potential partner, unless they are as lonely and as upset as you, in which case all you will both be doing is superficially distracting each other from your own feelings of meaninglessness. You must first like yourself and your own existence if you ever hope someone else will.

You should take stock in the things you do have that you value, your health and well being, for instance. Many people live in horrific brutal conditions around the world, yet often they are not as depressed as those of us in the west because they are kept so busy just trying to survive that they don’t have time to contemplate how meaningful or meaningless they find existence to be. It is the responsibility of those who are able to contemplate such things to come up with their own values and purpose for life. My cat does not fret about the purposeless of it's existence, it just enjoys life. Why do humans fret about such things? Because we are aware of ourselves and our existence in a way animals are not, we have to come to terms with our existence. My cat is not self aware, which is why many philosophies, like the nihilism of Buddhism, strive to make the only beings fully self aware, abdicate their realization of their own existence, so they no longer have to be burdened by such complex philosophical musings, they advocate just not thinking about anything ever, to devalue everything.

Lay of the drugs too, I don’t know if you do a lot, but often you post things that make absolutely no sense to me and are not even coherent statements. These can’t help you make clear decisions about your life, they are just attempts to escape the responsibility of thinking. Do not think that because your life has sadness it should end, you should experience sadness when you lose things you value, and happiness when you gain things you value. But you also ought to value the right things, and should be well aware of what you value and why, and always introspect on this topic. Also consider seeking professional help, you may have some real physiological problem with your mind that makes you sad and upset no matter how hard you try not to be. Our emotions are a response to our values, if you value nothing, you will not be happy to acquire things you value, or to see things you value get perpetuated (like the life of loved ones) and you will also be sad to lose something you value. But that response is a biologically programmed one, you choose what you value, but you cant choose your reaction to the loss or furtherance of your values, and in a physiological healthy mind those responses work right, but in a physiologically unhealthy one, the biological responses may be off and medication could get those responses to be proper again.

Since I love my own life, I extend the same courtesy to others and assume they do as well, but also I value human life at an intrinsic level, because life is precious and rare, and more spectacular and complex than the largest galaxy or most beautiful supernovae. Even a single simple cell is more complex than these, and a human mind with hopes and dreams and goals is far more beautiful. So I do not hope you decide to go through with suicide, but ultimately its your own life and the decision is yours. Just remember it is never a decision you can change your mind about. Dying for a cause is easy, it takes but a moment and lasts infinitely, but living for and fighting for a cause it much more difficult, it takes a continual and constant struggle from a devotion to your own values and life.