If I'm an ugly, misfortunate person. Why shouldn't I commit suicide and then have my body/brain cryo-preserved for a chance at being reanimated in a post-singularity world in which my problems wont exist? >ugly: 100% realistic, lifelike simulations of worlds/advanced surgery >misfortunate: not a poor idiot with no friends or prospect at romance
JUST WHY WONT THIS WORK?! people say >but user how do you know we'll be able to reanimate you, what if we cant? That's something that the singularity will have solved.
I cant take another second of this life, I am the runt of our species. We are smart animals and I'm a runt.
You have mental health problems, most people are not attractive and have no problem seeking romantic partners if they desire.
Austin Flores
You're depressed. See a therapist.
Lincoln Watson
because if you commit suicide you won't be able to do anything else (including talking to people/paying bills for the cyro/getting the actualy cryo etc)
Caleb Cruz
You sound like somebody who should kill yourself but not bother with the freezing, tbqh. Humanity has plenty of little bitches already.
Bentley Ross
nobody is gonna revive you unless you're very important and considering you're on Veeky Forums that chance is very slim
Brayden Green
damn that's one ugly ass cat
Colton Richardson
Cat looks like brainlet wojak.
Brody Evans
who you callin ugly?
Angel Long
If people don't care about you now, why would they care about you in the future?
Problems don't just disappear. Nobody is going to waste time and effort bringing you back when you have nothing to contribute now and almost certainly will have nothing to contribute in a post-scarcity world.
You're going to die naked and alone, a miserable failure.
There's a million and one people out there who are more capable and experienced with helping people like you find some way to deal with your anxiety and issues and exactly none of them are on this imageboard.
If you want out, get out. But don't expect anything on the other side.
Ryan Butler
>Nobody is going to waste time and effort bringing you back when you have nothing to contribute now and almost certainly will have nothing to contribute in a post-scarcity world. When you get cryopreserved, you pay for the revival process as well. That's why it's so expensive.
I suppose it's possible that the future preservers will not honour that agreement and spend the money on booze instead. But I don't really see that as the mainline possibility.
Julian Powell
Unless we allow the singularity to reach hyper-intelligent levels (which we would never let happen because it would most likely mean the destruction of humans) it wouldn't be able to recover the lost information of your neurons being destroyed from cryogenics. The best you could hope for is waking up very brain-damaged.
Eli Green
Because of how current 'cryotech' works, there will be ice crystal formation in your brain tissue which will make it absolutely impossible to bring you back. These cryopreservation companies are scammers.
Ian Sanders
>post-singularity world >problems such as these existing pick 1, thats what OP stated in his post.
Julian Cruz
>Never let happen Once the ball starts rolling we wont be able to 'let things happen' and 'let things not happen'
Elijah Moore
>Would be frozen cryogenically using contemporary means.
That means the problems that exist with our currently flawed technology will still be HIS problem, even after the technology is perfected. Post singularity does not mean you can literally bring someone back from the dead after 60+ years, if not far more than that. Don't be such a brainlet.
Zachary Gomez
Er, no. Avoiding that is the whole point of present-day cryonics.
Brandon Lopez
>getting woken up in distant future >no severe neurological damage >society has not crumbled >find adapting to the culture fairly easy >on the way back from grabbing dinner with cute girl >walking home with a smile on your with the moon light shining down >punk kid pissed off at years of beatings from his junkie dad stabs you to death and steals your wallet.
Kevin Gray
>At Alcor, we are optimistic that the toxicity that still does occur with vitrification of human organs will be reversible with future molecular repair technology.
Idk, user. Seems to me your choice is massive damage due to ice crystal formation, or massive cytotoxicity due to vitrification. Having either of these states be recoverable AT ALL, much less after a century or two.. well that's one hell of a big maybe.
Either way it's pretty clear that the point to these companies is to make a quick buck off of the insanely expensive casket they peddle their customer, along with the handful of false hope they provide.
Nathaniel Martinez
>wasting tens of thousands of dollars on a lottery ticket that probably has zero chance of working with any reasonable future technology in its current state
Sebastian Ortiz
Currently, prospects for reviving the dead seem quite dim. If you write something on a piece of paper, then burn the paper and stir the ashes, no hyper-advanced technology is going to recover what was written. The information is GONE! That's pretty much what freezing does to living cells.
Corpsicles (that's what Larry Niven called them) are taking a VERY long shot, as well as a very expensive one. It's to be considered only when there are ZERO alternatives; you have some horrible disease and the doctors can offer nothing but morphine to ease the 2 or 3 days you have left.
Incidentally, in the Niven stories, the corpsicles aren't particularly wanted in the future either. They're mostly gene-typed and dismantled into life-saving replacement organs for the taxpaying citizenry. Which you will not be one of. Incidentally, no sane economic system would allow you to will your money to yourself, to accumulate interest until you awaken in the 28th century. Either the funds would be wiped out by inflation or gutenberg.org/files/26867/26867-h/26867-h.htm
Jack Gutierrez
>Idk, user. Seems to me your choice is massive damage due to ice crystal formation, or massive cytotoxicity due to vitrification. Indeed. And one of those seems vastly easier to recover information from than the other.
>Having either of these states be recoverable AT ALL, much less after a century or two.. well that's one hell of a big maybe. I disagree.
Reversing the toxicity in the way that Alcor is optimistic about sounds like a great big "maybe" to me.
But recovering the information and reconstructing it into a fresh body does not. The feasible way to future recovery of cryonics patients, to me, lies not in repairing the damage of whatever killed the patient originally, as well as the massive systemic damage of the dying process, on top of the further damage done by cryopreservation. It lies in reconstructing a new body from scratch (my DNA is there, so growing an all-new body that is indistinguishable from my own minus the scars and deterioration incurred in life should be feasible enough; we can already do parts of this in animals in the lab), and then implanting my mind into that fresh body.
To do that, they won't need to be able to repair all this damage, either the parts caused by the cryopreservation procedure or the rest of it. They just need to be able to recover my mind from the frozen remains (as well as some DNA, but that should not be the main challenge), and implant it.
Hell, as far as I'm concerned, even keeping my actual body (rather than just my head) frozen is just a backup plan. All going well, they shouldn't even need it; my brain is the important part.
Mason Sullivan
When I made the "burning paper and stirring the ashes" analogy, I was referring to the brain. That's porridge. Like turning off a computer and running the hard-drive under a magnetic eraser. The fresh body (suitably genetically-engineered to correct the things you don't like about yourself) would be as blank as a baby.
>When I made the "burning paper and stirring the ashes" analogy, I was referring to the brain. That's porridge. Like turning off a computer and running the hard-drive under a magnetic eraser. Do you have a source for that? The whole point of cryopreservation is to treat the body in such a way that the information in the brain is NOT lost, which is why they use cryopreservant that does NOT cause ice crystals to form and cells to rupture. In cryopreservation, preserving the information in the brain is literally the #1 priority, everything else is a bonus.
If you have evidence showing that the procedures used by Alcor and the like do not manage this, than that is very important indeed, and I'd be very interested.
At the bottom is a correction that no gross abnormalities were seen, but that the brain was "preserved" rather than "restored". Which I take to mean that electrical activity did not resume. They just sliced it with a microtome and studied the tissues.
When something revives -- even an ant, which doesn't have much in the way of brains -- I'll become more optimistic.
>Which I take to mean that electrical activity did not resume. They just sliced it with a microtome and studied the tissues. Indeed. As I described in , being able to just restart the brain is not the point, and not something that is likely to be feasible with this technique. (It might be, if we are lucky, but I'm not holding my breath.) Rather, what this technique makes possible is recovering the mind under a microscope, and reimplanting that INFORMATION elsewhere. Think of it not so much as repairing a broken harddisk, as scanning a broken harddisk under a tunneling electron microscope and recovering the data to a working disk.
Not that we can do that right now, mind you. The priority lies in preserving things in such a way that the relevant information is there, to be recovered by some future tech, just like you referred to in .
>When something revives -- even an ant, which doesn't have much in the way of brains -- I'll become more optimistic. I would agree with you, if I had that luxury. But I don't. If I die before they are able to do that, or foresee dying at such a time, then I cannot wait for certainty. I must decide NOW whether my best guess is that the current preservation techniques allow for later feasible recovery, or not. It would certainly be nice to be able to delay this decision until things are more unmistakably clear, but this is not an option -- we must choose, and not doing anything is one possible choice with its own consequences.
Everything in that article points towards the technique in the article doing an excellent job of preserving the relevant information. So I know what MY choice is.
Brayden Hernandez
It's simply impossible to reanimate a corpse with the current state/procedure of cyrogenic freezing. Even if you suppose the singularity is rather high. There's still the boundary of the laws of reality. Also have you ever stopped to consider why anyone in the future would care to reanimate you? The concept of money and individual self would most likely be alien if humanity reached your view of the "singularity". An agreement from thousands upon thousands of years ago from their ancestors wouldn't matter to them. This is even if humanity has a chance to prosper anymore than a few more centuries. (Not to mention this ever glaring problem sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162505000235 ) Why not instead use that 200 grand for plastic surgery and self betterment? Go pay for a gym membership. Exercise will boost your confidence, minimize depression, and increases memory and thinking skills. Also avoid getting plastic surgery in shit hole countries and you won't look overdone.
Joshua Moore
> cryogenic freezing
kys
Samuel Cruz
>>JUST WHY WONT THIS WORK? You pay for cryopreservation with life insurance. Life insurance doesn't pay out if you commit suicide. Cryopreservation companies probably won't accept suicides even if you have enough money to pay for it right off the top.
Joseph Cox
Because you just aren't worth it pal. They'll throw your brain right into the trash the moment you show yourself to be gullible enough to buy that shit and get your brain sliced up voluntarily.
