• UK Teenage Cancer Patient Wins The Right To Be Cryogenically Preserved
    55 replies, posted
Colossal waste of money, even if it works let's not forget the trauma of waking up into a world where everyone you have ever known or even seen is dead.
[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51402242]Colossal waste of money, even if it works let's not forget the trauma of waking up into a world where everyone you have ever known or even seen is dead.[/QUOTE] Speak for yourself, I'd be hella glad to have another chance at life in the event that I die.
[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51402242]Colossal waste of money, even if it works let's not forget the trauma of waking up into a world where everyone you have ever known or even seen is dead.[/QUOTE] Well, that's based on the assumption that this technology will take a minimum of 60+ years and not, say, ten or twenty or thirty years. Plus as if I'd fucking care bring me to the future baby
Could you imagine how out of touch you'd be though, you might not even be able to function in a future society. You'd be like old people are now, but much worse because you won't have the brain chip or whatever. This could be an episode of Black Mirror. Some dude thinks it'd be cool to wake up in the future, but then they do and they're ostracised and treat like Neanderthal man. Then the final twist would be [sp]that he tries to kill himself but it's so far in the future that death is impossible because they just keep bringing him back like they did at the start of the episode[/sp]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51402011]A normal Christian burial will come at a fraction of the cost yet grant a substantially higher chance at obtaining eternal life[/QUOTE] A Viking funeral would be a tad more expensive but grant a much more fun afterlife with swords, booze, and bitches.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;51402404]A Viking funeral would be a tad more expensive but grant a much more fun afterlife with swords, booze, and bitches.[/QUOTE] Well only if you died in combat or otherwise gloriously, this person died of illness so uh, niflheim isn't really that fun
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;51402404]A Viking funeral would be a tad more expensive but grant a much more fun afterlife with swords, booze, and bitches.[/QUOTE] A Viking Funeral would grant a somewhat lower chance of eternal life than a Christian funeral, but both are still many times more effective and cheaper than this option. A Viking funeral would also be pretty bangin' and fun for those you left behind.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51402433]A Viking Funeral would grant a somewhat lower chance of eternal life than a Christian funeral, but both are still many times more effective and cheaper than this option. A Viking funeral would also be pretty bangin' and fun for those you left behind.[/QUOTE] Christian funeral has a 0% chance of eternal life. Viking funeral has a 100% chance of :ok:. Cryogenics has a non 0% chance of eternal life. Therefore christian funeral worst funeral.
What if the freezing causes you to die really really slowly?
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51402517]What if the freezing causes you to die really really slowly?[/QUOTE] They can't freeze you alive, thankfully. It's required that the medical professionals pronounce the person dead before the [del]con artists[/del] cryonic technicians can take their body away and commence the preservation procedure. I believe in countries where this stuff is practiced it's even legally considered a type of burial ritual.
What's the point of cryogenically freezing her?
[QUOTE=Kylel999;51402643]What's the point of cryogenically freezing her?[/QUOTE] So that some day, perhaps decades or centuries in the future, scientists will be able to thaw out her perfectly preserved self without damaging her tissue, and be able to study her corpse to learn what humans were like in 2016.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;51402186]I get that the prospect of eternal life/living beyond your current expectancy is an enticing one, but do you guys really believe that this would ever work out? I think if medicine ever becomes advanced enough to reverse the effects of death and our current cryogenic process, your tube would have been shut off long ago anyway because who is going to continue to look out for your interests that far into the future? I would much rather give my money to my loved ones than pay out to these companies, even if they have good intentions (which I doubt). I'd give them this money while I was alive so I can see them enjoy it and prevent any conflicts over my will. Then I'd want to donate as much of myself as was usable to help save/extend/better the lives of people waiting for donors.[/QUOTE] hey if my great great great grandfather was frozen right now and I'd have the opportunity to meet the fucker i'd sure as hell want to
800 years from now, about a dozen or so years after she's reanimated, she'll come across the legendary internet tomes, where all that was posted on Facepunch survives. She will read this thread and either weep or laugh at our discussion.
You've no idea what people will be able todo in a thousand years time if we're still around. Their technology could seem like magic to us. I think it's kind of cool freezing yourself, best chance you've got at living again anyway.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;51402186]I get that the prospect of eternal life/living beyond your current expectancy is an enticing one, but do you guys really believe that this would ever work out? I think if medicine ever becomes advanced enough to reverse the effects of death and our current cryogenic process, your tube would have been shut off long ago anyway because who is going to continue to look out for your interests that far into the future? I would much rather give my money to my loved ones than pay out to these companies, even if they have good intentions (which I doubt). I'd give them this money while I was alive so I can see them enjoy it and prevent any conflicts over my will. Then I'd want to donate as much of myself as was usable to help save/extend/better the lives of people waiting for donors.[/QUOTE] well if it never worked out you wouldn't know the difference so may as well put the chance there. and if you're wealthy enough to cryogenically preserve yourself, chances are you're going to be able to do that and leave behind a fair estate for your loved ones. [editline]21st November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ishwoo;51402242]Colossal waste of money, even if it works let's not forget the trauma of waking up into a world where everyone you have ever known or even seen is dead.[/QUOTE] your family members could join you in the freezers when they die though, and everyone could be reunited in the future.
[QUOTE=gudman;51402576]They can't freeze you alive, thankfully. It's required that the medical professionals pronounce the person dead before the [del]con artists[/del] cryonic technicians can take their body away and commence the preservation procedure.[/QUOTE] The 'con artist' angle is bullshit, they're providing a service (Preserving you cryogenically), but they obviously can't guarantee we'll have the tech in the future to restore you to health. I'm personally planning on not dying a natural death, with recent gene editing technology and AI being right around the corner I plan to utilize it all to extend my life. And in the event I do get something like cancer I plan to be cryogenically frozen, I ain't going into that great divide without a fight.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51403814]800 years from now, about a dozen or so years after she's reanimated, she'll come across the legendary internet tomes, where all that was posted on Facepunch survives. She will read this thread and either weep or laugh at our discussion.[/QUOTE] She would probably die again when she sees the bill.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51404250]The 'con artist' angle is bullshit, they're providing a service (Preserving you cryogenically), but they obviously can't guarantee we'll have the tech in the future to restore you to health. I'm personally planning on not dying a natural death, [B]with recent gene editing technology [/B]and AI being right around the corner I plan to utilize it all to extend my life..[/QUOTE] I hate to break it to you, but gene editing being "right around the corner" is a big much ado about nothing. Biotech startups are hyping the shit out of it to attract investors, the actual understanding of what can be done and what can't with CRISPR is completely up in the air, and recent developments don't look good. I tend to find FP has a way too rosy view of science, you guys don't realize how much of it is pissing in the dark and how hopelessly incompetent most fields of research are. We have trouble figuring out how simple drugs work and the extent of a receptor's functions, and you think being able to precisely control and predict the complex web of genetics is right around the corner? Stop daydreaming, you'll live better with what time you do have.
[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;51404404]Stop daydreaming, you'll live better with what time you do have.[/QUOTE] You underestimate our ability to use technology to assist our understanding of topics, I have no doubt the human brain can't fully understand the complex implications of individual gene editing, but it's only a matter of time until the low level editing is obfuscated away using computers; imagine what high-level languages made possible for computing those many years ago, now imagine we unlock that possibility on gene editing. We went from the first computers 70 years ago, to having machines that fluently understand human language in our pockets, and even more expensive and larger ones that are better at diagnosing diseases than human doctors. The inevitable march of technological advancement almost certainly guarantees we'll be creating and modifying organisms with almost complete control within the next 100 years. To view all of this as 'outside the scope of science' is underselling the complexity and ability of the universe we live in; The varied carbon base life form is an excellent example of the sheer possibilities of creation and extent we'll have at our fingertips, and to suggest that we won't harness something that nature so clearly has, is a severe underestimation of the human race. [editline]21st November 2016[/editline] I mean on a low level, nature has clearly figured out how to create gene replication, selective editing, we [I]know[/I] what can be created and achieved in carbon based life, it's just a matter of harnessing it for our own use.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51408403]You underestimate our ability to use technology to assist our understanding of topics, I have no doubt the human brain can't fully understand the complex implications of individual gene editing, but it's only a matter of time until the low level editing is obfuscated away using computers; imagine what high-level languages made possible for computing those many years ago, now imagine we unlock that possibility on gene editing. We went from the first computers 70 years ago, to having machines that fluently understand human language in our pockets, and even more expensive and larger ones that are better at diagnosing diseases than human doctors. The inevitable march of technological advancement almost certainly guarantees we'll be creating and modifying organisms with almost complete control within the next 100 years. To view all of this as 'outside the scope of science' is underselling the complexity and ability of the universe we live in; The varied carbon base life form is an excellent example of the sheer possibilities of creation and extent we'll have at our fingertips, and to suggest that we won't harness something that nature so clearly has, is a severe underestimation of the human race. [editline]21st November 2016[/editline] I mean on a low level, nature has clearly figured out how to create gene replication, selective editing, we [I]know[/I] what can be created and achieved in carbon based life, it's just a matter of harnessing it for our own use.[/QUOTE] Computer Science is an almost completely logic based field that just builds on itself, genetics is an entirely different area. You don't say, "Look at the sun, we understand how it works, we can create one of our own now." We might have nuclear fusion, but the jump between the two is astronomical.
Its a nice thought, there is a maybe, rather than nothing. But then is there nothing, its too confusing
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51408403]You underestimate our ability to use technology to assist our understanding of topics, I have no doubt the human brain can't fully understand the complex implications of individual gene editing, but it's only a matter of time until the low level editing is obfuscated away using computers; imagine what high-level languages made possible for computing those many years ago, now imagine we unlock that possibility on gene editing. We went from the first computers 70 years ago, to having machines that fluently understand human language in our pockets, and even more expensive and larger ones that are better at diagnosing diseases than human doctors. The inevitable march of technological advancement almost certainly guarantees we'll be creating and modifying organisms with almost complete control within the next 100 years. To view all of this as 'outside the scope of science' is underselling the complexity and ability of the universe we live in; The varied carbon base life form is an excellent example of the sheer possibilities of creation and extent we'll have at our fingertips, and to suggest that we won't harness something that nature so clearly has, is a severe underestimation of the human race. [editline]21st November 2016[/editline] I mean on a low level, nature has clearly figured out how to create gene replication, selective editing, we [I]know[/I] what can be created and achieved in carbon based life, it's just a matter of harnessing it for our own use.[/QUOTE] Let me state it for you a bit more bluntly and concisely: you will be dead before gene editing is capable of extending lifespans or creating aryan superhumans or whatever else nonsense ideas people have cooked up in the wake of CRISPR announcements.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51409077]Computer Science is an almost completely logic based field that just builds on itself, genetics is an entirely different area. You don't say, "Look at the sun, we understand how it works, we can create one of our own now." We might have nuclear fusion, but the jump between the two is astronomical.[/QUOTE] Genetics is a physics based system just like the electrons on the lowest level of computing. With the immense amount of processing power we're harnessing we're going to use it for gene editing. I mean we already are, IBM has a research project IIRC using a Watson unit. [editline]21st November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;51409513]Let me state it for you a bit more bluntly and concisely: you will be dead before gene editing is capable of extending lifespans or creating aryan superhumans or whatever else nonsense ideas people have cooked up in the wake of CRISPR announcements.[/QUOTE] CRISPR isn't the only way to edit genes, we're still making headway with using retroviruses to do gene modification. Anyway, I'll be ashamed if humanity fails to harness gene modification in my lifetime, but even barring that, cryo is my backup plan.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.