Video The Cryonics Institute Offers a Chance at Immortality (Video) 254
David Ettinger: My name is David Ettinger and we are sitting here at the Cryonics Institute. Robert Rozeboom: When was this place constructed? David: The Cryonics Institute was established in 1976. We’ve been in our current building about 20 years. It was not constructed by CI. CI bought the building then. Robert: I was going to ask you how you got started in this, but I read that Robert Ettinger was your father, so can you just tell us a little bit about him? David: Yeah, my father Robert Ettinger is considered the founder of the cryonics movement and was also the founder of the Cryonics Institute. He wrote a book in 1964 called The Prospect of Immortality. That was the first widely publicized proposal that people be frozen at death in the hope of future revival. And when he did that I was about 13 so I grew up with the idea. Robert: And you prepare the bodies here? David: CI at its facilities perfuses and freezes and stores patients. Robert: And what does that involve? The perfusion? David: There are many steps in the process. The steps involve gradual cooling from of course body temperature down to liquid nitrogen which is about -196 Centigrade, very cold temperature, and additionally there are steps in the process that involve replacement of the blood with cryoprotective chemicals – chemicals that protect against the formation of ice crystals. Robert: So a patient has to be legally declared dead first, correct? David: The CI only freezes people after legal death. However death is not something like the equivalent of a light switch going off, people don’t go suddenly all alive and then suddenly all dead. In fact, many people have been revived after what used to be considered death - after heart attacks, after lots of catastrophic events. Death is essentially the point at which the doctor gives up. That’s what all the definitions come down to. The definition of death has changed over time, because the doctor gives up later and later as technology gets better. Now the point about cryonics is in the future the doctor is going to give up much later because there are going to be many more opportunities to treat what people die of. And that means someone who is legally dead today, if frozen immediately will hopefully reach a future in which they are revivable. Robert: Right now we can freeze embryos, blood and such things, but has anyone ever actually frozen a whole organism ____3:02. David: I mean there haven’t been any whole mammals frozen and brought back. There have been lower organisms that have been. Of course, part of the cryonics premise is that the freezing damage that occurs by today’s processes will themselves be reversible in the future. So that’s part of what we are counting on future technology to do, but there are many reasons to believe based on research that has occurred that that damage is limited. And so there’s good reason to hope and expect that that damage will be reversible in the future. Robert: So if someone was brought back, since they have already been declared dead, what sort of legal status will that have? David: That is the least of our worries. I am a lawyer, however I’ve spent zero time worrying about what happens when I am revived to my legal status - a future that is able to radically extend life. And that is able to revive people that are frozen is going to have a lot of capabilities. Robert: You think they will be beyond paperwork at that point? David: I think that they will be able to handle the fact that a few people have come back who were legally declared dead. Robert: So who does this sort of thing? Are there a particular group of people you find that ask for this more than others? David: CI has about a 1000 members and they come from all walks of life. I would say though that there are disproportionately people in the sciences, computer sciences among others – people who work with technology and understand its promise in the future. Robert: What is the cost to do this? David: Freezing through the Cryonics Institute is really surprisingly affordable, (it sounds like a pitch in a commercial) but it is true, CI’s price and it can vary some for people at a distance. The CI’s standard price is $28,000. What that $28,000 covers is the initial freezing and indefinite storage. The way the CI can do that is that part of that money goes for the initial cost of the freezing, and much of it is retained and the interest on that money is what’s used to pay for indefinite storage. CI has developed its own storage capsules that are exceedingly safe, very durable, and very economical. The ongoing cost of freezing is that these capsules contain liquid nitrogen and they are essentially like very large thermos bottles and very slowly, the liquid nitrogen boils off, as it has to. So the ongoing cost is replacing the liquid nitrogen, but our units have been improved over time, they are so efficient that that cost is a very small amount per person per year. As a result, our expenses are low in that regard. I should say that when my father founded CI in 1976, the price CI charged was $28,000. Today, the price CI charges is $28,000. You will have to go a long way to find products that can point to that level of zero inflation over a period of almost 40 years. Robert: Yeah, very few. I was talking to Andy earlier about how the Cryonics Institute or the cryonics community is a small community, and we talked a little bit about Alcor and how their price was much much greater than here. What is the reason for that do you think? David: I don’t really want to talk about other organizations. I prefer to be positive about ours. I think in CI’s case we are a nonprofit volunteer organization. We have a very small paid staff. Most of the people who do work for the organization do it on a voluntary free basis. We don’t pay the board, we don’t pay the officers. I am CI’s lawyer and to the extent other people in my firm do work, I need to charge for them, but to the extent I do work, I don’t charge for it. CI exists because its members really want what CI is offering. Nobody is doing it for the money. We are doing it for selfish reasons to be sure, but those selfish reasons are: We want to live longer. We want our families to. And we want to get a chance to come back. So we are able to do this all in a very economical way. Robert: How many people do you have stored here at the facility? David: I don’t have the exact count in my head, I must confess, but upwards of a 110 or 115 people are stored at CI. Robert: And there is a service that will bring them to you? David: There is a company that some of our members have contracted with to provide standby services. I think most of our patients come directly to CI. Of course, for patients living in the Detroit area where CI, that’s pretty straightforward. For patients living elsewhere we help them find funeral directors who will work with them, sometimes to begin the process. The perfusion process is not all that different than what a funeral director does in embalming except it is of course, very different chemicals that are used, for a very different purpose. So funeral directors can play a significant role at the beginning of the process. Robert: I also read that you don’t offer a ‘neuro’ option? David: Yes, CI does not freeze just heads. We freeze the whole bodies – we limit ourselves to that. Robert: What do you see the future of cryonics being? David: Well, my father came up with the idea in the ‘40s; he assumed that it was so obvious that everybody would be doing it soon. When they didn’t, he wrote his book. That created a certain stir but didn’t lead to lots of cryonics organizations. So he founded CI and after that it took CI about 20 years to really begin getting patients to a significant degree, and that’s been accelerating a lot. You know, 110 patients versus millions of deceased people every year is not exactly the majority, but CI has been growing and its growth has been accelerating. I think that it is due to the fact that people are recognizing more and more that changes in science and in medicine are not merely continuing but they are accelerating and they are going to become radical and dramatic. To me, it is very clear, beyond doubt, that there is going to come a time when people are not dying of old age; when lives are indefinitely extended. And it might even be relatively soon. The problem is for a lot of us now living it may not be quite soon enough – it would be really embarrassing if you were part of the last generation to die, and you didn’t try to do something about it. And the best chance we have is cryonics. It is not certain. But it is certain that if you don’t do this, if you don’t get frozen, that you are not going to have that opportunity. Robert: You think advances in cloning, and the fact that we can digitally 3-D print tissues and stuff now, do you think that it is piquing the interest in cryonics? David: Well, I think a lot of things are but maybe most importantly, people are beginning to recognize for the first time that aging itself is simply a defect of the process. And that there will be opportunities to retard aging and maybe reverse aging and cure aging. And there have been some successes recently experimental with a variety of organisms, so people are getting the idea that this most fundamental of things, aging and death, the most horrible of things, that have always been inevitable throughout all of mankind’s history may not be so inevitable any more. And once you start realizing that, you begin to ask more fundamental questions, about what your alternatives are and what your options are. And I think people are doing it. I think there are two reasons why cryonics has not grown more rapidly. One is, I think a lot of people are in denial upon the subject. And the simple reason is because death has always been so horrible and so inevitable people don’t like to think about it and deal with it. And cryonics is new enough that there are not regular institutions to deal with it - you can’t find an ad on television to tell you who to call, your doctor may not know who to call. And so you’ve got to take certain steps on your own. Since it is not easy to do, and since it is confronting something that people don’t like to confront, I think a lot just avoid the subject. Secondly, I believe there are a lot of people who in principle know about cryonics and think it is a good idea but never quite get around to acting in time. CI gets lots and lots of calls from people who say, “My mother died two weeks ago.” “My father died a month ago,” “What can you do?” And it is too late. Because they don’t reach out and make arrangements in advance. I have obviously known a lot about cryonics for a long time, but my father who died about a year ago, and is frozen and is here, died at 92, but we were very concerned; first of all, we were trying to keep him going, and take care of the problems that caused him ultimately to die; but secondly, we wanted to be sure that we were ready so that he could be frozen as soon as possible after legal death, and to make his chances as good as possible. And we spent a lot of time planning and working with hospice and being ready, and in his case, he was pronounced dead, and the cooling process began within a minute. That’s because we spent a lot of time making preparations. Not everybody can be that lucky. People don’t always die in a predictable way.If you can consider that luck under the circumstances, he was lucky compared to what might have been. But the point is, be prepared.
already been done (Score:5, Funny)
Slashvertisement (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, it's not immortality if they freeze you after you die.
Immortality means not to die at all.
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
While, frankly, I'm okay with resurrection, as a backup, there is no way I'm paying for a service I have to die to use. There is zero contract enforceability.
Also roblimo and his slashvertisements are all so blatant, it's insulting.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . there is no way I'm paying for a service I have to die to use. There is zero contract enforceability.
What about life insurance?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI: You can't be cryogenically frozen until you are legally dead.
Re: (Score:2)
If they could non-destructively freeze and thaw you, it could be legal on a non-dead person.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the part I'm skeptical about. Take two fresh strawberries. Put one in the fridge, put the other in the freezer and freeze it, then pull it out and let it thaw. Get the berry from the fridge and do a taste/texture test. Not even close to the same.
Something happens to all those cells when they freeze, so even if your brain doesn't turn to jelly when they defrost you, you definitely won't be as tasty after freezing and thawing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Parent is saying that if these cryogenic promoters actually had a method of reviving people, then cryogenics could be used on living people. They'd be clinically dead during the freezing, but that would legally be no different to a heart-lung transplant or similar high-end surgery which don't count as legal death.
And if they had such a technique, it would start to be used in medicine and the law would need to be settled. Initially to preserve organs for transplant; allowing proper long-term organ banks. But
Re: (Score:2)
Then how does a will work? Or are those not actually legally binding?
there's limitations what a will can stipulate... in most countries what's done with the body is more like a wish than a legally enforceable demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Define death. (Score:2)
Also, it's not immortality if they freeze you after you die.
Immortality means not to die at all.
Define death.
It used to be that you died when your heart or breathing stopped. But now we can restart both. We even stop them regularly to repair the organs in question. Even brain death is problematic, when some drugs or conditions like hypoxia can temporarily shut down electrical activity. This is one reason that most hospitals require multiple checks a few hours or even a full day apart before declaring legal death. We are constantly pushing against the boundaries of what death is.
So, if your body f
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Informative)
usually they use a criofluid to suspend the whole system. Essentially your body is made to handle sodium, so they raise the salt content and then freeze you to below activation energy for all destructive reactions. This preserves your body from decay and locks it into a physical and chemical state that's non-destructive; however, resuming biological function is tricky. The reactions in the cells have to start back up again, and the salt levels in your blood need normalization; there needs to be oxygen supply and nutrient; and all macro-biology needs to resume (mainly heart beat and brain activity).
On the other hand, you'll find out immediately after you die if they have figured all of this out and not gone bankrupt. You'll wake up in the future. Medical care and insurance and longevity treatment covered for at least 2 years plus anything related to the cryo better be included, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Medical care and insurance and longevity treatment covered for at least 2 years plus anything related to the cryo better be included, though.
And anticipation of feline complications. I don't want anything to happen to Mr. Bigglesworth!
Re: (Score:2)
If they thawed me out & I never had to shave again? Hmmm.. Two for one!
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Insightful)
I know they claim all this, but without some kind of evidence it really feels like they are just bilking desperate dying people out of $100k or more. There's just too many assumptions. 1) Long term memory and personality is stored in the physical structure of the brain rather than the electrical signals themselves. 2) Even assuming #1, they still assume that the freezing process doesn't damage too many of those structures to prevent recovery. 3) Even assuming #1 and 2 they assume that they can get the brain cold enough fast enough to prevent damage. 4) Even assuming #1,2 and 3 they further assume that the technology will be developed to repair and reactivate a body that is either quite literally freezerburned or completely flooded with anti-freeze compounds. And 5) They again assume that someone would want to and be willing to go through the trouble to do it in 50 or 100 years.
So, my response is this: Prove the first 4 assumptions valid, and maybe we'll talk. Take a healthy rat, train it on a maze, freeze it for a few months, revive it, put it through the maze again. If it performs on par with how it did before it was frozen at least you've demonstrated the survival of gross motor skills, long term memory, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Long term memory and personality is stored in the physical structure of the brain rather than the electrical signals themselves
Electrical signals *are* physical. They certainly aren't metaphysical.
So, my response is this: Prove the first 4 assumptions valid, and maybe we'll talk. Take a healthy rat, train it on a maze, freeze it for a few months, revive it, put it through the maze again. If it performs on par with how it did before it was frozen at least you've demonstrated the survival of gross motor skills, long term memory, etc, etc.
I don't think anyone is claiming that it can be done now. If it could, presumably you could just be prevented from dying in the first place and would not need to be frozen. The whole point of freezing you is that we *don't* know how to do any of this stuff (possibly including freezing), and maybe someone in the future will have the technology and desire to undo all the damage and reanimate you. No one should be doing this without know
Re: (Score:3)
Yes electrical signals are transient in nature. They are the sorts of things that freezing (and many other things would definitely interfere with). However it seems that while these signals are definitely part of the state of your consciousness, they are probably not the whole state or even a critical part of the state. For instance when you get severely electrocuted (e.g. struck by lightning) and survive, you're mental state is definitely altered (e.g. some memory loss, disorientation, etc), but not so
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent, experiments have been done that provide some fairly convincing evidence for #1-4.
1. Electrical measurements of brain activity during anesthesia pretty much disprove this one. During heavy anesthetic, the neurons stop communicating and become fairly quite electrically. They become even quieter if you cool the blood.
2. This is a mostly guess, based on electron micrographs of frozen specimens. When the freezing is done perfectly, the details seem to still be visible. Also, an experiment h
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, you'll find out immediately after you die if they have figured all of this out and not gone bankrupt. You'll wake up in the future. Medical care and insurance and longevity treatment covered for at least 2 years plus anything related to the cryo better be included, though.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll have universal healthcare by then.
And jet packs. Don't thaw me out if you don't have jet packs.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the World of Tommorrow!! (Score:4, Funny)
Okay, I had to say it.
Re:Welcome to the World of Tom Tomorrow! (Score:2)
Okay, I had to say it.
Sparky the Penguin says, "Hi!"
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't. By the time you get unfrozen, the World Leader will be Tom Morrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I pay when I wake up? (Score:2, Insightful)
If they really believe in their technology, they should have no problem with a payment plan that starts when you wake up...
Re: (Score:3)
Careful what you wish for... [wikia.com]
I don't think you want that. (Score:2)
If they really believe in their technology, they should have no problem with a payment plan that starts when you wake up...
Pray that never happens.
Welcome to Life: the singularity, ruined by lawyers [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
BS on so many levels (Score:4, Insightful)
First, the crude cryonics they use today is not going to work well, and may well not leave anything that can be revived behind.
Second, why would anybody want to revive some corpses at huge expense when making a few children more is so much easier? Or why would anybody go through the effort of reviving anybody, when the world is over-populated in the first place? Well, maybe if you freeze some truly exceptionally people (like Fields-medal winners), that one may be different, but I doubt it. Everybody else is just going into the trash at some indefinite time in the future.
And third, why would anybody reasonably want to be unfrozen, when the world is massively changed and everybody they knew and cared about is gone? There are a few SF books that use long-term "storage" as punishment for the criminal, and they have it right.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Your chilled mushy brain will provide a delicious dessert for the people of the future.
Re: (Score:2)
True.
On a hot summer's day, the cheerful music and bright bell-ringing of the ice brain truck will bring crowds of happy, yelling, excited zombie children from all up and down the block. It'll be a big part of their fond child-zombiehood memories.
Re: (Score:2)
They need your knowledge of 20th century football to thwart hot evil alien princesses?
Re: (Score:2)
By then we should already have the technology to stick an earthworm into an intelligent super-suit.
Oops, wrong franchise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:BS on so many levels (Score:4, Insightful)
And third, why would anybody reasonably want to be unfrozen, when the world is massively changed and everybody they knew and cared about is gone?
Because they could meet new people and learn a new world?
Why would people want to move from Europe to America in the 1700's?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the future. All of your morals are belong to us!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine someone from the 1500s waking up now.
Depending on their walk of life, I would not be at all surprised if they had a better work ethic than the average American. There's no reason why a curious and motivated 14th-century person couldn't learn enough to get along in modern society, especially if they get some initial help.
If somebody was offering one-way trips to 2500 right now -- assuming that I was convinced that the technology involved would actually work -- I'd do it without hesitation. There's plenty of us without any particularly strong
Re: (Score:3)
1. There are about a million and a half bewildering and contradictory laws that we can't even make sense of. Good luck not getting arrested for doing something you thought was just fine.
2. Women are not property and have equal rights to vote, hold office, and own property. Mind==blown right there. Blacks are not subhuman mud people, and have equal rights. Animals have legal rights too. People can marry members of the same sex in some pl
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, obviously I had a brainfart on translating "1500s" to a century.
As far as the societal-level changes that you mention go -- there are still a lot of places in the world where attitudes and culture are a lot closer to 1500s Europe than they are to modern society in the US or Europe. But people can and do come from those places and manage to assimilate reasonably well.
I don't think that the comparison with "elderly" people is completely relevant, given that the original statement was that they wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the insight, Brooks from Shawshank Redemption, but some people don't actually mind change, new knowledge, luxuries made possible by technology, and different cultures (especially ones in the future). Who knows maybe a 21th century human might get some novelty points with the opposite sex in the future. Or maybe they can just give you one of their brain implants to quickly bring you up to speed like in the Matrix.
And if you will remember from the same movie, Red went from "Hope is a dangerous th
Re: (Score:3)
Quack science is for quackers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they just really enjoy Taco Bell.
Re: (Score:2)
Two is really the biggest problem. Unless you've done something historically exceptional or somehow racked away money in some sort of structure that won't be immediately raided by your successors, then no one will be interested except maybe some curiosity seekers or people who just want to prove after all this time that it can be done (and is now available for sale to the general public).
As for three, I would eagerly embrace the chance to see a new world with new advances in science and the arts. It would
Re: (Score:2)
Second, why would anybody want to revive some corpses at huge expense when making a few children more is so much easier?
On an impersonal level, they'd do it from curiosity, love of 'impossible' challenges, the urge to use a particular related talent in a new/interesting way, a drive to become famous, greed. On the more personal level, they'd be acting on the wish to preserve/'save' somebody that they already know, care about, and/or admire, whether the individual was "great" in society's eyes or just in the eyes of others around them.
Also, you'd evidently be surprised how many people have those urges so strongly that it replaces/overrides any interest they may have had in reproducing, regardless of how they feel about children in general; in rare cases, it's so powerful that it takes the place of the drives to find a long-term mate and/or have sex. As I once saw one such person remark: why on Earth would I cast aside someone that has already proven to be an asset to others' lives in favor of spending my time/energy gambling on the crappy odds of producing an individual that, with 20+ years of massive effort & money, *might* turn out to be remotely as worthy?
Re: BS on so many levels (Score:2)
Forgot to close the quote tag...trying again:
Second, why would anybody want to revive some corpses at huge expense when making a few children more is so much easier?
On an impersonal level, they'd do it from curiosity, love of 'impossible' challenges, the urge to use a particular related talent in a new/interesting way, a drive to become famous, greed. On the more personal level, they'd be acting on the wish to preserve/'save' somebody that they already know, care about, and/or admire, whether the individual was "great" in society's eyes or just in the eyes of others around them.
Also, you'd evidently be surprised how many peo
Re: (Score:2)
And third, why would anybody reasonably want to be unfrozen, when the world is massively changed and everybody they knew and cared about is gone? There are a few SF books that use long-term "storage" as punishment for the criminal, and they have it right.
What a sickeningly xenophobic statement. Some people enjoy learning about new cultures, such as a westerner spending time in China or Japan. How would this be any different? I find the prospect exciting!
That said, this is a blatant rip off on par with the scientologists. So I guess I'll pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, why would anybody want to revive some corpses at huge expense when making a few children more is so much easier?
Why would we assume it is going to be expensive forever? Presumably technology could make such a thing possible and eventually inexpensive.
Or why would anybody go through the effort of reviving anybody, when the world is over-populated in the first place?
Why do we need to be revived into bodies that take up the same amount of space and resources? Why would it still be the case that we are stuck on earth?
And third, why would anybody reasonably want to be unfrozen, when the world is massively changed and everybody they knew and cared about is gone?
Why would anybody want to exist? It's part of our programming as products of evolution. Even if everyone I knew was gone, I'd still enjoy being alive, especially if I got to see what the future was like. It's not lik
Re: (Score:2)
Morality? The first few that are unfrozen will insist on a matter of principal that the remainder be revived. Besides, isn't it more ethical to resume an existing life than create a fresh one?
Or you could use the pragmatic argument that there probably won't be many people frozen. And the handful who are will have very valuable historical knowledge and insight (imagine talking to someone from the 1800s).
Re: (Score:2)
A) you are an anonymous coward and hence beneath notice.
B) I expended the time to read your posting nonetheless, and nothing you any is of any value, just as is to be expected of an AC.
If I wake up old and disabled or demented... (Score:3)
I'm not seeing an advantage here. If I wake up in an age with a lobster, cyclops, rastafarian bureaucrat and obnoxious robot, I might be inclined to exclaim, "Excellent news everyone!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing an advantage here. If I wake up in an age with a lobster, cyclops, rastafarian bureaucrat and obnoxious robot, I might be inclined to exclaim, "Excellent news everyone!"
More likely you'll wake up to find you're now Holly, as that process is a tad cheaper than full biological revival.
First thought (Score:3)
Ted Williams [wikipedia.org] would roll over in his freezer if he read this. At least, his head would. . . .
The only freezer... (Score:2)
Permanent brain damage & unbudgeted revival co (Score:5, Insightful)
Permanent brain damage starts within 5 minutes of not receiving red blood cells with oxygen. So you would have to be frozen before then, and in such a way as to prevent ice crystalization from permanently damaging cells, which is not done with current cryogenic techniques. Otherwise you would lose so much of your personality, intellect, memories, and consciousness from brain damage, that even if they could regenerate all of that grey matter in the future, your brain would no longer be you, but would be someone else. (So what is the point?)
Aside from that, no matter how cheap it is to freeze someone, it's is likely going to cost a lot more to revive someone who is frozen, and regenerate their body into a functional state. How many people looking at cryogenics are budgeting for revival costs? Maybe they hope the future will be some socialist utopia, which is funny considering the global tend for wealth concentration and reduction of public services, including healthcare for the living.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, they've got a clever answer: given infinite time, we can solve that problem.
Conveniently, they won't be around in infinite to be accountable if it doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Have people been resuscitated after say, 30 mins or even an hour, and managed to have their brain functions relatively intact?
Look up "Mammalian Diving Reflex" (Score:4, Interesting)
Have people been resuscitated after say, 30 mins or even an hour, and managed to have their brain functions relatively intact?
Absolutely. Look up "Mammalian Diving Reflex".
Brain damage from short-term clinical death happens primarily after revival. The valves routing blood to the parts of the brain that need it stick in the state they were in when the oxygen finally failed.
Muscles contract with stored energy and require metabolism to relax. "Valve off" is contracted, so when blood flow and oxygen is restored, the valves for regions of the brain that were turned down don't get oxygen and can't reopen - and without the blood flow they can't get oxygen, in a viscous circle. Raising the blood pressure to try to force them just blows the vessels, causing a stroke. The
nerves die over a half hour to an hour (and kill each other off through glutamate cascade, as dying nerves release glutamate that causes others to fire, deplete their remaining energy reserves, and die in turn.
Mammals, though, have a reflex related to deep diving. When diving deep, the increased pressure increases the partial pressure of oxygen, keeping things running until most of the oxygen is used up. Then coming back back up lowers the pressure further and can leaver the brain oxygen starved for long enough to produce the "valves stuck" phenomenon. To prevent this, mammals have the following reflex: When oxygen is running out AND the body (I think it's the back of the neck) is cold, the valves all open up, so any that get stuck are in the open position. Once oxygen is restored the blood flows, the nerves survive, the muscle gets repowered, and all is well - if thing hadn't been shut down long enough that too many cells died meanwhile.
This was discovered when some victims of drowning in cold water recovered just fine, with no brain damage, after half an hour or more of clinical death. I think the time before damage sets in is something between 25 and 45 minutes.
I don't know how CI's current protocols work. But ALCOR's are designed to include activating the diving reflex, if possible, so the brain's valves stick in the open position.
(This is more to encourage better perfusion of cryoprotectants than to try to make the brain restartable: As of the last time I looked the thought was that brains preserved - even by the best techniques available at the time - would require rebuilding by nanotechnology, so the idea was to preserve as much as possible of whatever might encode memory and personality.)
Re: (Score:3)
When oxygen is running out AND the body (I think it's the back of the neck) is cold,
Face is cold. (Specifically, regions innervated by the Trigeminal nerve.) No other region triggers the reflex.
(It does other things besides the valve thing, too.)
Re: (Score:2)
The five minute meme is a common misconception. [huffingtonpost.com]
From the linked article:
"Contrary to common perception, brain and other cells in the body can live for many hours after a person dies. There are different estimates on how long cells can survive without a blood supply and oxygen after death: bone cells for four days, skin cells for 24 hours. Although the oxygen and energy supply to brain cells is depleted within four to five minutes, brain cells remain viable but non-functioning for up to eight hours."
Extraordinary claims (Score:2)
Let me pull out a rhetorical stick I've been beaten with more than once: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Show me the evidence that ressurecting a dead organism of any kind -- even a bacterium, even a plant -- will ever be possible. *Ever.*
(crickets chirp ...)
Re:Extraordinary claims (Score:4, Informative)
Plenty of organisms can survive nontrivial periods of complete metabolic shutdown, combined with some amount of cellular damage, and rehydrate and go on without significant trouble. Tardigrades are probably the most charismatic ones (survives 10 days of unprotected exposure to spaceflight and looks like an adorable little alien bear!); but extremophilic bacteria are even tougher.
Even humans will (with odds lousy enough that you don't want to try it; but good enough that documentation is available) survive short periods of total circulatory shutdown or longer ones of inactivity in very cold water.
'Resurrection' of an organism in a more advanced state of damage (or an organism for which precise brain configuration is considered important) is likely more fundamentally problematic. Even if you had indistinguishable-from-magic nanobots and the option to rebuild atom by atom, if you don't have somebody's 'correct' neural state on file, there are any number of configurations that would work; but wouldn't be the person you are trying to revive.
Re: (Score:2)
The last point is arguable. The nanorobotics would be permanent nanoscale fixtures built into a large machine, they would not wander around freely like in science fiction. Given that micromachined parts work today (a common example is the mirror array in certain kinds of projectors), nanomachined parts seem probable in the future.
Furthermore, your brain has an awful lot of redundant circuits and connections. If you were rebuilt atom by atom, it is possible that the person revived would be "close enough"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
human embryos used for in-vitro fertilization.
Kind of hard to resurrect that which is not yet alive, dink.
Re: (Score:2)
The big distinction here is that the cells are fast frozen while still alive. If they experienced cell death (by whatever scientific definition applies) and are then frozen, chances are you'd just
Re: (Score:2)
Did you really say that? Of course an embryo is alive.
Yea, I guess I should have phrased it differently:
Kind of hard to resurrect that which has yet to die, dink.
Better?
The big distinction here is that the cells are fast frozen while still alive.
Hm. Well, since the term 'resurrection,' when applied to human life, specifically refers to bringing the dead back, perhaps for clarification sake they should use a different term...
Suspended animation always had a nice ring to it, but doesn't really cover the waking-up part... OOH! I've got a good one: Persistence! It makes sense, and is totally Spock!
Say What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thanks for being the second person to point out my poor choice of phrasing.
No, seriously, I hate echo chambers - can't fix what you don't know is broken, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Fail. They are frozen _alive_, otherwise the whole thing would not work. 1 minute with Google could have told you that. But I guess that goes beyond your capabilities.
Who says things will be better? (Score:2)
Or you'll like what you fine when you thaw out? Corpsicles in Sci Fi [jessesword.com]
I specifically remember reading Larry Niven's "Rammer."
Cheers,
Dave
Larry Niven, World out of Time (Score:2)
It's not that hard (Score:2)
I put a fly in the freezer for a week, let it unfreeze on the table at room temperature after that. After an hour or two, it flew away.
The weird thing is, a week later I received a job offer from Veridian Dynamics.
One way to lower the cost (Score:2)
Turn your preservation into a local tourist attraction and party: Frozen [frozendeadguydays.org] Dead [wikipedia.org] Guy [frozendeadguy.com] Days [nederlandchamber.org].
Cheers,
Dave
Frozen Snakeoil (Score:2)
Scan me up Scotty. (Score:2)
Hmm, I'd rather not be the frozen corpse they try to resurrect for grins long after sentient immortality is achieved, instead just scan me in [youtube.com] and utilize me as a blueprint now. [wired.com]
I mean, I'm a hacker and researcher of cybernetics and neuroscience, so folks like me would be the best canditades since we could help you wake us up from the inside if we catch a glimmer of awareness. That is: We could escape the "Chinese Box" if we found ourselves in it. I've got so many things to do, but not enough life-span t
Modern cryogenics... (Score:2)
Doesn't the freezing process done by modern cryogenics still destroy the body quite considerably? I was under the impression the idea of reviving you would not only be curing your initial reason for death but also repairing all the damage the ice crystals that formed caused to your body, which would almost mean giving you a whole new body.
Will we ever reach a position medically where that much damage can be repaired?
Video? (Score:2)
I clicked on all the links but I didn't find the bloody video. Where is it?
No! (Score:3)
Mush (Score:2)
It's a scam.
Just what we all need (Score:2)
A bunch of Walt Disney wannabes. It still amazes me that people actually believe that this kind of technology holds any promise unless your trying to create zombie armies of the undead.
Re:There's only one path to immortality... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I know people that read the Bible and are now dead. Do they get a refund or what?
Hey, it never said you get to keep your terrestrial flesh-sack.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the bible (well, partially, never read anything quire this badly written, boring and disconnected from reality before or after), and it strikes me as ye old pyramid scheme, built entirely on hot air and the belief of the gullible...
Re: (Score:2)
It's an acquired taste, like roquefort cheese.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as one groups of wackos peddle their fraudulent promises, the others feel motivated to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone walked into an archaeology lab and said "Hey, we found this Neanderthal in the ice, and I think we can fix him" don't you think they'd give it a go, especially if they knew it would work?
It's likely that once society has advanced enough that we can revive geezercicles, we'll not begrudge them the expense of doing so.
Re:Would they care to revive you even if they can? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if they found a million Neanderthals, all of whom would want jobs and a place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow a million neanderthals that want to do work in exchange for money? How is this different than 7 billion homo sapiens wanting the same thing?
A million neanderthals would be a drop in the bucket. If all were reanimated in the US, our population would go up by 0.3%, and the world's would go up by 0.014%
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely that once society has advanced enough that we can revive geezercicles, we'll not begrudge them the expense of doing so.
How do we know that "once society has advanced enough," they won't simply decide that the geezercicles aren't worth the time or energy? Or, if they do decide reviving an ancient relic of a bygone era (one they probably won't be able to communicate with, any more than we could communicate with a caveman), what makes you think they'll use the person as anything but a laboratory rat?
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is 2-fold - 1, some shit just ain't worth the effort, and 2, be careful what you wish for.
Re:I don't want to be immortal, just ancient. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny. When I was in my 20's I wanted to live forever. Now, in my 40's, I sometimes wonder if it will ever end.
Re: (Score:2)
You're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL AC, no thanks, having too much fun.
Re: (Score:2)