= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
A survey of anti-cryonics writing
(This was originally a link to a post on my blog, A survey of anti-cryonics writing. Eliezer asked me to include the entire text of the article here.)
For its advocates, cryonics offers almost eternal life. To its critics, cryonics is pseudoscience; the idea that we could freeze someone today in such a way that future technology might be able to re-animate them is nothing more than wishful thinking on the desire to avoid death. Many who battle nonsense dressed as science have spoken out against it: see for example Nano Nonsense and Cryonics, a 2001 article by celebrated skeptic Michael Shermer; or check the Skeptic's Dictionary or Quackwatch entries on the subject, or for more detail read the essay Cryonics–A futile desire for everlasting life by "Invisible Flan".
That it seems so makes me sad, because to my naive eyes it seems like it might work and I would quite like to live forever, but I know that I don't know enough to judge. The celebrated Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman tells a story of a US general who spoke to him at a party and explained that one big challenge in desert warfare is keeping the tanks fuelled given the huge distances the fuel has to travel. What would really help, the general said, would be if boffins like Feynman could invent a sort of engine that was powered by sand. On this issue, I'm in the same position as the general; in the same way as a tank fuelled by sand seems plausible enough to him, it makes sense to me to imagine that however your brain stores information it probably has something to do with morphology and chemistry, so there's a good chance it might not evaporate right away at the instant of legal death, and that freezing might be a way to keep the information there long enough for future societies to extract it with their future-technology scanning equipment.
And of course the pro-cryonics people have written reams and reams of material such as Ben Best's Scientific Justification of Cryonics Practice on why they think this is exactly as plausible as I might think, and going into tremendous technical detail setting out arguments for its plausibility and addressing particular difficulties. It's almost enough to make you want to sign up on the spot.
Except, of course, that plenty of totally unscientific ideas are backed by reams of scientific-sounding documents good enough to fool non-experts like me. Backed by the deep pockets of the oil industry, global warming denialism has produced thousands of convincing-sounding arguments against the scientific consensus on CO2 and AGW. Thankfully in that instance we have blogs like Tim Lambert's Deltoid, RealClimate, and many others tracking the various ways that the denialists mislead, whether through cherry-picking evidence, misleading quotes from climate scientists, or outright lies. Their hard work means that denialists can barely move or speak without someone out there checking what they have to say against science's best understanding and pointing out the misrepresentations and discrepancies. So before I pony up my £25 a month to sign up to cryonics life insurance, I want to read the Deltoid of cryonics - the articles that take apart what cryonics advocates write about what they do and really go into the scientific detail on why it doesn't hang together.
Here's my report on what I've found so far.
Nano Nonsense and Cryonics goes for the nitty-gritty right away in the opening paragraph:
To see the flaw in this system, thaw out a can of frozen strawberries. During freezing, the water within each cell expands, crystallizes, and ruptures the cell membranes. When defrosted, all the intracellular goo oozes out, turning your strawberries into runny mush. This is your brain on cryonics.
This sounds convincing, but doesn't address what cryonicists actually claim. Ben Best, President and CEO of the Cryonics Institute, replies in the comments:
Strawberries (and mammalian tissues) are not turned to mush by freezing because water expands and crystallizes inside the cells. Water crystallizes in the extracellular space because more nucleators are found extracellularly. As water crystallizes in the extracellular space, the extracellular salt concentration increases causing cells to lose water osmotically and shrink. Ultimately the cell membranes are broken by crushing from extracellular ice and/or high extracellular salt concentration. [...] Cryonics organizations use vitrification perfusion before cooling to cryogenic temperatures. With good brain perfusion, vitrification can reduce ice formation to negligible amounts.
Best goes on to point out that the paragraph I quote is Shermer's sole attempt to directly address the scientific claims of cryonics; once the opening paragraph has dispensed with the technical nitty gritty, the rest of the piece argues in very general terms about "[blind] optimistic faith in the illimitable power of science" and other such arguments. Shermer received many other responses from cryonics advocates; here's one that he considered "very well reasoned and properly nuanced".
The Quackwatch entry takes us little further; it quotes the debunked Shermer argument above, talks about the cost (they all talk about the cost and a variety of other issues, but here I'm focussing specifically on the issue of technical plausibility), and links to someone else making the same already-answered assertions about freezing damage.
The Skeptic's Dictionary entry is no advance. Again, it refers erroneously to a "mushy brain". It points out that the technology to reanimate those in storage does not already exist, but provides no help for us non-experts in assessing whether it is a plausible future technology, like super-fast computers or fusion power, or whether it is as crazy as the sand-powered tank; it simply asserts baldly and to me counterintuitively that it is the latter. Again, perhaps cryonic reanimation is a sand-powered tank, but I can explain to you why a sand-powered tank is implausible if you don't already know, and if cryonics is in the same league I'd appreciate hearing the explanation.
It does link to the one article I can find that really tries to go into the detail: Cryonics–A futile desire for everlasting life by "Invisible Flan". It opens on a curious note:
If you would like my cited sources, please ask me and I will give them to you.
This seems a very odd practice to me. How can it make sense to write "(Stroh)" in the text without telling us what publication that refers to? Two comments below ask for the references list; no reply is forthcoming.
And again, there seems to be no effort to engage with what cryonicists actually say. The article assets
it is very likely that a human would suffer brain damage from being preserved for a century or two (Stroh).
This bald claim backed by a dangling reference is, to say the least, a little less convincing than the argument set out in Alcor's How Cold is Cold Enough? which explains that even with pessimistic assumptions, one second of chemical activity at body temperature is roughly equivalent to 24 million years at the temperature of liquid nitrogen. Ben Best quotes eminent cryobiologist and anti-cryonics advocate Peter Mazur:
...viscosity is so high (>1013 Poise) that diffusion is insignificant over less than geological time spans.
Another part of the article points out the well-known difficulties with whole-body freezing - because the focus is on achieving the best possible preservation of the brain, other parts suffer more. But the reason why the brain is the focus is that you can afford to be a lot bolder in repairing other parts of the body - unlike the brain, if my liver doesn't survive the freezing, it can be replaced altogether. Further, the article ignores one of the most promising possibilities for reanimation, that of scanning and whole-brain emulation, a route that requires some big advances in computer and scanning technology as well as our understanding of the lowest levels of the brain's function, but which completely sidesteps any problems with repairing either damage from the freezing process or whatever it was that led to legal death.
Contrast these articles to a blog like Deltoid. In post after painstaking post, Lambert addresses specific public claims from global warming denialists - sometimes this takes just one graph, sometimes a devastating point-by-point rebuttal.
Well, if there is a Tim Lambert of cryonics out there, I have yet to find them, and I've looked as best I can. I've tried various Google searches, like "anti-cryonics" or "cryonics skeptic", but nearly all the hits are pro-cryonics. I've asked my LiveJournal friends list, my Twitter feed, and LessWrong.com, and found no real meat. I've searched PubMed and Google Scholar, and again found only pro-cryonics articles, with the exception of this 1981 BMJ article which is I think more meant for humour value than serious argument.
I've also emailed every expert I can find an email address for that has publically spoken against cryonics. Sadly I don't have email addresses for either Arthur W. Rowe or Peter Mazur, two giants of the cryobiology field who both have strongly anti-cryonics positions; I can only hope that blog posts like these might spur them into writing about the subject in depth rather than restricting themselves to rather brief and unsatisfactory remarks in interviews. (If they were to have a change of heart on the subject, they would have to choose between staying silent on their true opinions or being ejected from the Society for Cryobiology under a 1982 by-law.) I mailed Michael Shermer, Steve Jones, Quackwatch, and Professor David Pegg. I told them (quite truthfully) that I had recently started talking to some people who were cryonics advocates, that they seemed persuasive but I wasn't an expert and didn't want to fall for a scam, and asked if there was anything they'd recommend I'd read on the subject to see the other side.
The only one of these to reply was Michael Shermer. He recommended I read David Brin, Steve Harris and Gregory Benford. This is a pretty surprising reply. The latter two are cryonics advocates, and while Brin talks about a lot of possible problems, he agrees with cryonics advocates that it is technically feasable.
I expanded my search to others who might be knowledgable: Society of Cryobiology fellows Professor Barry Fuller and Dr John G Baust, and computational neuroscience Professor Peter Dayan. I received one reply: Dayan was kind enough to reply very rapidly, sounding a cautionary note on how much we still don't know about the structure of memory and referring me to the literature on the subject, but was unable to help in my specific quest for technical anti-cryonics articles.
In his 1994 paper The Molecular Repair of the Brain, cryptology pioneer Professor Ralph Merkle remarks
Interestingly (and somewhat to the author's surprise) there are no published technical articles on cryonics that claim it won't work.
Sixteen years later, it seems that hasn't changed; in fact, as far as the issue of technical feasability goes it is starting to look as if on all the Earth, or at least all the Internet, there is not one person who has ever taken the time to read and understand cryonics claims in any detail, still considers it pseudoscience, and has written a paper, article or even a blog post to rebut anything that cryonics advocates actually say. In fact, the best of the comments on my first blog post on the subject are already a higher standard than anything my searches have turned up.
If you can find any articles that I've missed, please link to them in the comments. If you have any expertise in any relevant area, and you don't think that cryonics has scientific merit - or if you can find any claim made by prominent cryonics advocates that doesn't hold up - any paragraph in Ben Best's Scientific Justification of Cryonics Practice, anything in the Alcor Scientists’ Cryonics FAQ or the Cryonics Institute FAQ, or anything in Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (which isn't directly about cryonics but is closely related) - then please, don't comment here to say so. Instead, write a paper or a blog post about it. If you don't have somewhere you're happy to post it, and if it's better than what's already out there, I'll be happy to host it here.
Because as far as I can tell, if you want to write the best anti-cryonics article in the world, you have a very low bar to clear.
Related articles: Carl Schulman links to Robin Hanson's What Evidence in Silence or Confusion? on Overcoming Bias, which discusses what conclusions one can draw from this.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (310)
Your "read more" link doesn't work.
The New Yorker recently had an article titled The Iceman. Judging from the abstract, it's anti- and not very high quality (excerpt: "The consensus appears to be that when you try to defrost a frozen corpse you get mush", a type of argument covered in your post.)
Hint: Just in case you're not within reach of this issue of The New Yorker, a little bit of Google-fu turns up a scan of said article.
I found the piece not particulary exciting. It's certainly well-written but Jill Lepore obviously wasn't interested in digging too deeply re: the scientific or non-scientific foundations of cryonics. Instead we get a lot of impressionistic descriptions of Michigan (where the Cryonics Institute is located), slightly disdainful accounts of the CI's facilities and many synopses of SF stories .The latter isn't without reason, though, because Robert Ettinger was very influenced by Science Fiction.
Mrs. Lepore does her best to let Ettinger come across as grumpy, though I suspect that this "grumpiness" has to do with him knowing all to well what will very likely come out of it when a general interest magazine visits the CI. In other words, we are witness to a small culture clash: Of course it must be strange to a historian like Lepore that Ettinger has a completely different sensibility!
Reading that led me to this: Corpsicles in The New Yorker
The allegation that cryonics is pseudoscience reminds me of the allegations that Singularitarianism/Transhumanism are "atheist religion", "the rapture for nerds", etc. That confusion, I think, comes when people see the questions we're investigating — "Could we live forever?", "Could we end suffering?", etc. — and assume that we're answering the questions in a way similar to how religion does... or they don't even think to remember why they believe religion is bad, and they assume that it's the questions rather than the answers. Obviously, the problem with religion isn't the questions it asks, nor their motives for asking those questions; the problem is the way religion acquires answers to those questions. The same applies to seeking eternal life. Eternal life as a goal isn't wishful thinking; it's wishful thinking when people mistakenly believe that the goal is easy or has already been reached ("you can live forever if you believe in Jesus", etc.). Yet it's not surprising that many perfectly intelligent people buy into these memes. They are used to hearing completely bullshit answers to these completely legitimate questions, so they get to the point where the questions themselves set off their bullshit alarms, even in the context of attempting to investigate them within a rigorous scientific/rational framework.
The "singularity == religion" and "cryonics == pseudoscience" memes are comparable to someone in the early 1960s comparing the Apollo program to the story of the Tower of Babel, and then dismissing the program on that basis as a technically infeasible religious fantasy.
I've also encountered people who criticize the predictions surrounding the singularity, which misses the point that the singularity is the point beyond which predictions cannot be made.
edit: Didn't mean that as a comprehensive definition.
If that were true about the Singularity, then wouldn't it be correct to criticize the people who make predictions about it?
Depends on your objectives. If you believe the singularity is something that will happen regardless then it's harmless to spin scenarios. I gather that people like Elizier figure that the Singularity will happen unavoidably but that it can be steered towards optimum outcomes by setting down the initial parameters, in which case I suppose it's good to have an official line about "how things could be/how we want things to be"
I dispute that point.
That is not the most common usage here. See Three Singularity Schools and the LW wiki page.
EDIT: The parent comment does not deserve to be at -4. This is a reasonable thing for an inexperienced commenter to say.
Voted up for niceness.
Thanks for saving me from karmic hell, but I still don't see the conflict. I seem to follow the Vinge version, which doesn't appear to be proscribed.
I may have been too categorical, obviously one can make all the predictions he likes, and some with a high percentage of certainty, for instance "If cryorevival is possible then post singularity it will be trivial to implement" but that still doesn't give us any certainty that this will be so, for instance a post singularity paperclip maximizer would be capable of cryorevival but have no interest in it.
There is no "point beyond which predictions cannot be made". That is a SF fantasy.
God forbid someone might mistake our hypothetical discussions about future smarter than human artificial intelligences for science fiction.
Actually the Apollo program was quite well supported by the advancing missile technologies that were developed from the 1940s and onwards. Those early and ongoing tests made clear demonstrations of the ability to launch man-made objects into orbits around the earth and the moon. There's no such similar testing that has been done for cryonics. That analogy is really exaggerating things.
If you think that the Apollo program was better supported by missile evidence than cryonics is by the rabbit kidney vitrification, you're going to have to show your workings. You should do so in more than a comment, though, since whatever you post will as I show above be the best anti-cryonics article in the world.
More seriously, not only is the question the same, the answer is the same too: "Why yes, you can live forever! And it's easy! Just pay this reasonable fee to the Organization, and we will take care of it."
If religion teaches us anything, it is that people really don't want to die, and will happily be convinced by very poor arguments that they aren't going to.
Therefore, the fact that a given person is convinced that cryonics will work is much weaker evidence about whether cryonics will work or not than if that that person were convinced it will not, since it would require less high-quality evidence to convince him or her in the "yes" direction.
This argument holds even if the person is yourself -- we should be more doubtful about our convictions if they happen to be the kind of thing that we are inherently predisposed to believe.
No it isn't. The similarity to religion means that people will be more easily convinced it will not work, unless it happens to be the mainstream belief.
Very true! So a clever man will know that the cryonist was convinced against the odds, and so the fact that the cryonist was convinced is strong evidence; clearly the clever man should believe also. But! this must have been how the cryonist reasoned, which explains why he was easily convinced with a minimum of evidence. That means that it is actually very easy to be convinced about effectiveness of cryonics, so other peoples' belief is weak evidence after all. So I can clearly not believe in cryonics!
A classic blunder!
Yes, getting hugely tangled up in meta-level arguments instead of looking at the actual arguments and evidence and object-level way-the-world-is would indeed be a classic blunder.
The difference between cryonics and, for example, global warming denialism is that the former makes a claim like "it is probably a good thing to do X", while the latter makes a claim like "X is/is not true". These are completely different things!
Perhaps it is better to compare it to the anti vaccine movement. They do make a claim of the form "X is good/bad for you". Now the difference becomes about evidence. For cryonics there is little evidence either way: it has never worked, and it has never not-worked. In such a case there is little we can do beyond trying to use reason alone (always a dangerous thing) and waiting for more experiments.
On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that vaccines work just fine. Denying that evidence is wrong.
Your definition of evidence is too narrow.
Why is it a sin to deny a lot of evidence, but not a little evidence?
Because the less evidence there is, the better the chance that we're mistaken about it, all else equal. But this seems obvious enough that I guess I'm missing your point.
Sure, the weaker the evidence, the less you'll be misled on average by ignoring it. But there doesn't come a point where ignoring evidence is not misleading at all compared to updating on it. It's never going to be a good idea to start saying to yourself "that's only a little bit of evidence, so I'll just pretend it wasn't there".
If updating were costless, I'd agree.
Your link seems to be broken, but I assume you meant to link this post?
Gah! fixed - thanks!
EDIT: have now put in entire text as per Eliezer's request.
Betting on technology that doesn't currently exist is never a sure thing. But cryonics is a good deal even if the probability of revival is low.
I agree that the link doesn't seem to be working. But I would very interested to learn more. I haven't been all that skeptical of cryonics until now. Logically it seems like if there is a way to preserve the information in your brain, then one day somebody will figure out how to extract it. I guess that's a bit like running an engine on sand. After all, sand in theory contains a great deal of energy in the form of nuclear bonds.
BTW I've studied the issue carefully and probably disagree with you about global warming. Probably it's too charged an issue for rational debate in this forum, but I did lay out my case here:
brazil84.wordpress.com
Thanks again! I'd still prefer if this sentence were modified so that it doesn't appear to be your thesis on first reading:
You could bracket it in a "skeptics claim X" the way a (good) journalist would, perhaps...
I've replaced the full stop with a semicolon, to make it clearer that the "To its critics" opening covers that whole claim.
I really appreciate this post. I am in the cryonics process, so it is nice to read an evaluation of the prospects. Even if I have made my decision for now, I could always cancel my life insurance.
this is what tipped the scales heavily in favor of cryonics for me. the skeptics make ridiculous claims, and the people who know about the current state of biological research seem genuinely optimistic about it. that's good enough for me considering the low cost and potentially very very high utility payoff.
"Pseudoscience" isn't the only possible criticism of cryonics. One could believe that it may be scientifically possible in theory, still without thinking that it's a good idea to sign up for cryonics in the present day. (Basically, by coming up with something like a Drake equation for the chance of it working out positively for a current-day human, and then estimating the probability of the terms to be very low.)
You're right, that most of the popular criticism of cryonics is mere non-technical mocking. Still, there's a place for reasoned objections as well.
This article http://www.alcor.org/printable.cgi?fname=Library%2Fhtml%2FWillCryonicsWork.html gives something like a drake equation for cryonics
Maybe it's the correlation between believing in cryonics and being a smart rationalist, but for my money the most rational arguments against cryonics [Edit: or how cryonics is being practiced] don't come from people against cryonics. They come from cryonics supporters exploring the other side of the argument, or confronting what's wrong so they can try to fix it. I take that as strong evidence that those against cryonics are getting something badly wrong.
I nominate the appropriate bits of the above Alcor article as currently the best anti-cryonics article in the world.
The first 4 minutes of this is another good example. The guy on the left is Mike Darwin.
There certainly is. Please point me to them.
Cryonics is hard to argue against as it partially involves magic (in the sufficiently advanced technology sense) and it involves something we don't fully understand, how information is stored in the brain. So the lack of technical criticism might be a rare instance of people shutting up about things they don't understand.
Cryonics advocates make lots of specific claims - see the articles linked at the end. Is there no claim on any of those articles that could be countered?
I don't know. The thing is the concrete claims do not add up to water tight case for cryonics doing what people want, that is preserving identity over the long term. The Alcor Scientist's article says as much.
There is space for later understanding of the way that the brain stores memories or just some chemical state important for identity to not be preserved by cryonics as it is currently practised.
There is space for that. It could turn out, say, that memories depend on some chemical or other being in one of two isomeric states, and that vitrification fluids will flip all the isomers the same way, leading to immediate information theoretic death.
However, I think that the case that Alcor and others present is enough to shift the burden of proof. At the moment there seems no reason to think that homeopathy or sand-powered tanks will work, and the burden is on proponents to come up with such a reason. By contrast, while we're a long way from being able to say with confidence that cryonics will work, we are at the stage where we can say that we should expect that it is likely to work until someone can come up with a reason why it shouldn't work.
Scenarios like the one in my first paragraph above would be quite a surprise; as far as I know they don't form any part of our current understanding of how memory is stored. It's not enough to throw out a bunch of "maybes": if you accept that there's no part of the evidence presented above that can be taken apart and shown to be flawed, then it is sufficient that it's a mistake to have low confidence in the technical plausibility of cryonics until someone presents a biologically plausible way for it not to work.
I'd say It depends how complete you think modern neuroscience is. If you think neuroscience is fairly complete and there won't be many gotcha's about how things work then I would adopt your view.
The less complete it is, and the more known unknowns and unknown unknowns there might be before we get a full understanding the more chance that one of those unknowns will interact with the vitrification fluid or how quickly we manage to get people vitrified at the moment (we might not be being quick enough to preserve some chemical structures).
I half jokingly compared it to alchemy in the pre-chemistry days, they had so many unknown unknowns people couldn't find convincing arguments against it. Should they have expected it to work? That is an extreme example though, I think we have a better handle of the brain than the alchemists did of the possibilities of transmuting lead to gold.
I'd just like to point out that the people who don't believe in cryonics aren't the ones asking for money. The burden of proof should be on the organizations like Alcor because they are the ones trying to sell you an actual product. Without a stringent burden of proof they are just snake-oil salesmen.
From a starting point of ignorance, this would be a reasonable stance. However, as a response to ciphergoth's claim that Alcor's case "is enough to shift the burden of proof" (that is, Alcor has met their burden of proof, and it is now up to the detractors to provide a rebuttal), it does not make sense.
You've misread my wording. I'm saying that the burden of proof should stay on Alcor because they are the ones trying to make money. They should do more than just show something "might work" if they are trying to charge you for services which they claim "will work".
Epistemological conclusions shouldn't be based on fear of being scammed. Alcor's motivation should be taken into account Bayesianically, but argument screens off motivation (limited of course by dependence on unchecked facts).
From the Alcor FAQ: "Is cryonics guaranteed to work? No."
They make no such claim, so they do not bear that burden.
Alcor and CI are non-profits.
So no matter what Alcor or CI write or what evidence they produce, the burden of proof is still on them and their critics need not say or write a word to justify being dismissive of what they do?
If the cryonics organizations (or the scientific community) found strong evidence, then the critics would certainly have to justify themselves strongly. The current state of the evidence I would not call strong -- but others on LW seem to disagree. After discussing this semi-extensively on prior Less Wrong threads, the confusion seems to arise due to a blog philosophy of evidence as a "Bayesian entity" (I quote this because I haven't studied Bayesian statistics so I'm not quite sure what it's all about) whereas the general scientific community views evidence most strongly as a physical entity (i.e., established through direct tests, polls, experiments, theoretical results, and so on) -- I tend to take the latter viewpoint more seriously.
Then you should learn. Start here, or if you already have some experience applying Bayes' Theorem, start here.
BTW, I've been bugging people for being off-topic all thread, so I thought I should say somewhere: this is exactly on-topic, this objection is as specific to my argument as can be. Thank you.
Er, should this be "cryonics pioneer"?
EDIT: Huh, apparently he's both! Never mind...
I'm a crypto guy first of all, so that's the context I think of him in.
Just two minutes ago, a very good anti-cryonics argument appeared to me. This is not my opinion, just my solution to an intellectual puzzle. Note that it is not directly relevant to the original post: I will not claim that the technology does not work. I will claim that it is not useful for me.
Let us first assume that I don't care too much about my future self, in the simple sense that I don't exercise, I eat unhealthy food, etc. Most of us are like that, and this is not irrational behavior: We simply heavily discount the well-being of our future selves, even using a time-based cutoff. (Cutoff is definitely necessary: If a formalized decision theory infinitely penalizes eating foie gras, then I'll skip the decision theory rather than foie gras. :) )
Now comes the argument: If I sign up for cryonics, I'll have serious incentives to get frozen sooner rather than later. I fear that these incentives consciously or unconsciously influence my future decisions in a way I currently do not prefer. Ergo cryonics is not for me.
What are the incentives? Basically they all boil down to this: I would want my post-cryo personality to be more rather than less similar to my current personality. If they revive my 100 years old self, there will be a practical problem (many of his brain cells are already dead, he is half the man he used to be) and a conceptual problem (his ideas about the world will quite possibly heavily diverge from my ideas, and this divergence will be a result of decay rather than progress).
To be honest, I'd prefer that discussion here stay focussed on the things that I raise in the article rather than becoming another general discussion about cryonics. My blog post on the subject ends with a "comment policy" that asks commenters to stay focussed on technical feasibility, and to avoid presenting novel arguments against technical feasibility in the comments, since if you accept what I argue, any such argument that had merit would deserve more prominence than a comment.
I've added most of your sources to the TakeOnIt wiki debate:
"Is cryonics worthwhile?"
http://www.takeonit.com/question/318.aspx
The cryonics debate now has four sub debates:
Am I missing any major sub-debate?
Wow, the Caplan and Stark arguments against aren't worth adding here, I don't think.
Edited to add: the question I'm most keen to hear arguments on is "does the cryonic freezing process cause information-theoretic death?"
OK, per your suggestion I added the question: "Do the best currently available cryonic techniques cause information-theoretic death?". I can't actually find any expert who answers yes to this question. Any pointers?
P.S. I actually think the Caplan and Stark arguments reasonably reflect the mainstream objections to cryonics. However, if you know of better critics, please suggest some.
I forget who brought this up--maybe zero_call? jhrandom?--but I think a good question is "How quickly does brain information decay (e.g. due to autolysis) after the heart stops and before preservative measures are taken?" If the answer is "very quickly" then cryonics in non-terminal-illness cases becomes much less effective.
I came across a few cites supporting the "quite a bit" answer in the "Cold War" article at Alcor (linked elsewhere on this thread).
There's more at the link.
I don't know whether this is on topic since it is not a technical argument, but it is from my field of expertise which is economics. From the CI Faq: "Cryonics is practiced because of a belief that the damage caused by current cryopreservation can someday be repaired."
Now from the preceding paragraphs I get the feeling that science proceeds in the way of developing better preservation techniques that reduce the potential damage. So damage repairing technologies would have to be developed separately. In order for those technologies to be developed, however, there needs to be an economic gain expected. Now what would that gain be? The money payed for cryonics has already been payed. New customers are gained by better preservation techniques not by repairing techniques. The knowledge of the preserved people would probably be obsolete by then.
A small amount of people signing up for cryonics is necessary to show that to be a viable market so that preservation technologies are being developed at all. However if the customer base is too large without significant advances in this field the pressure to develop better preservation technologies is reduced. In any case the people already preserved the old way are probably dead unless there would be a significant amount of preserved people whom future societies value only for their personalities or any inflicted damage is in fact negligible already.
No, I wouldn't consider this to be on-topic, sorry. I'd like to stay focussed on technical feasibility and the arguments raised in the article.
I think he raised a very valid concern. Also, cost is a very important dimension in terms of technological development. If money were not an issue, I have little doubt that we would have seen manned missions to Mars and several asteroids. However, money is very much an issue.
Why will so much go into recovering brains when new ones are so damn cheap?
I'm not disputing that it's a valid concern, I'm trying to focus on one particular question in the discussion rather than just opening another general discussion on the subject of cryonics.
The general problem of deciding what to make of theses cases was discussed in the Overcoming Bias post What Evidence in Silence or Confusion?
Thanks - have added to the body of the post.
Also interestingly, there appear to be no published technical articles that claim that it will.
Last week, I searched for articles on how mammalian cryopreservation is done. I found nothing. Not a single journal article on any of the techniques Alcor uses. There are many articles on cryopreserving sperm, and embryos; there are studies on attempting to preserve other types of tissue samples. But I could not find a single article on methods to attempt to cryopreserve adult mammals. Not even in the journal Cryobiology, which is entirely about cryopreservation.
Go to the current issue of Cryobiology and look at the article titles to see what actually is being done in the field. Also notice that the author names are almost all Asian and (non-English/French/German) European. Cryonics for humans is most popular in nations that don't publish on cryonics. (Don't know if it's popular in the Nordic countries.)
That's forbidden by the Society for Cryobiology by-laws.
Why?
See Alcor's side of the story (also linked in the article).
Thanks for the link, and eeew.
Nice link - I added Alcor's side of the story to the question "Is cryonics worthwhile?":
http://www.takeonit.com/question/318.aspx
Thanks to everyone's suggestions, there's now 5 sub-debates for cryonics:
Aha. I hadn't been aware of that conflict between cryonics and cryobiologist. I plan to go and read the Alcor page in full, then the letter in full, but right now one thing comes to mind: whatever document justifies the cryobiologists' decision to outright ban cryonics should lay out the most credible extant arguments against cryonics. They wouldn't take such a serious decision on a whim.
[EDIT: the below is wrong.]
As far as I can tell, there is no such document. This I consider very striking evidence on the credibility of anticryonics.
Of course the by-law is 28 years old, so even if there were such a document it would need updating.
That's one of the most depressing things I've read in a while >.<
Pretty much agree.
The only thing that gives much comfort is that was written in 1991 so there's theoretically enough time for some of the obstructionist cohort to have retired or run out of steam on the subject. Perhaps the upside of a pessimistic view on scientific progress could be kicking in by now?
I tried to verify the actual current state of the Society for Cryobiology's bylaws to see if they even contain the provisions banning cryonicists or their research any longer. With 20 years for them to have realized that such censorship is at the very least in poor taste, maybe things have settled down? When I tried looking for an online version of the document with the it didn't appear to be something they have on display.
Does anyone else have stronger google-fu than I? It would be neat to track down the document so we could see for ourselves :-)
Wow, I'm actually having a very hard time finding any information on relations between the two more current than the '91 article
Wow, that really stirs up the rebel in me.
I'm curious now to look more into the state of the art in cryopreservation. How close are we to successfully cryopreserving an organ?
Done, though not at LN2 temperatures:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094092
http://www.cryostasis.com/perspectivesandadvances.pdf
Awesome. Thanks for the links.
I think most cryobiologists are going about it the wrong way, trying to get incrementally better at cryopreserving tissue. The work I'm aware of that seems most promising (I say, having almost no familiarity with the field) is Ken Storey's work with wood frogs. They can freeze and thaw naturally.
I looked into it because I hoped I might be able to move some genes from a wood frog into a mouse, freeze it, thaw it later, and win the Methuselah Mouse prize. But it turns out that the frog has an anti-dessicant response to protect tissue from lack of water, an anti-ischemia response to protect tissue from lack of oxygen, a glucose response to produce glucose as a cryoprotectant, an anti-glucose response to protect cells from the huge amounts of glucose, and a bunch of other mysterious responses. It involves hundreds of genes. It's going to take a large program to import entire gene pathways from one organism to another.
I'm having the same problem. All the studies I've looked at have only studied the plausibility of cryonics. None have actually attempted to freeze and thaw a mammal (or any other warm blooded animal). All the examples of "natural" cryonic preservation deal with cold blooded animals (usually frogs or fish).
Can anyone point me to studies showing that cryogenic freezing and thawing in warm blooded creatures is possible? I'd hate to throw down a bunch of money on a cryonics policy, only to end up dead anyway, because the freezing process permanently damaged my tissues.
Not an entire mammal, but Greg Fahy has cryopreserved a kidney, brought it back and shown a rabbit able to live using it as its sole kidney.
Perhaps just as importantly for this whole discussion, nematodes have been shown to survive cryopreservation, with "memories" intact.
Very interesting! Again, not LN2 temperatures though.
EDIT: I'm wrong - thanks for the correction!
The abstract I linked to does mention LN2. Though I'm not sure how much difference various sub-freezing temperatures make, if our concern is how well the current protocols of cryonics can protect the brain against freezing damage.
I Googled for articles concerning nematodes because they're the standard "simplest organism with a nervous system", and this was among the first hits, filtering to exclude all publications by cryonicists.
What would be the next "higher" organism someone might have tried that on, that also has a nervous system?
I found this article in which John Bischof speaks out against cryonics, so I mailed him, and he very politely replied almost immediately to say that cryobiologists consider cryonics a "faith based approach". Sadly he provided no more detail; I've mailed again asking him to write on the subject at greater length.
Update: he replied to my reply. I have also had mail from Ralph Merkle! Will make a new post on my blog with details later.
There were some fantastic links here. Thankyou!
Does anyone here know what the break-down is among cryonics advocates between believing that A) in the future cryopreserved patients will be physically rejuvinated in their bodies and B) in the future cryopreserved patients will be brain-scanned and uploaded?
I think there is a reasonable probability of effective cryopreservation and rejuvination of a mammal (at least a mouse) in the next 25 years, but I think our ability to 'rejuvinate' will be largely dependent on the specific cryoincs technologies developed at that time, and that it is very unlikely cryonics methods developed before that time will be acceptable for rejuvination. Realize that once an effective cryopreservation method has been developed, socially there will be much more interest in perfecting it than there will be in going back to the old technology used to freeze past generations and figuring out how we can get that to work for their sake.
The paragraph on climate change seems a little out of place. You must be aware that some of your readership will feel it undermines your case so its inclusion seems almost intended to pull in an unrelated debate into the discussion.
I'm a long way from being an expert neuroscientist, but as far as I can tell the mechanism under which neural change happens essentially involves a few physical changes:
1) Myelination - the Myelin coating over the Axon of a neuron grows, making the Axon conduct it's signal more powerfully and quickly
2) Change in number and distribution of neurotransmitter receptors in the dendrites of the neuron. Obviously the more of them you have, the more likely the neuron is to fire in the presence of the transmitter which fits that receptor.
3) Change in the number and distribution of vesicles which release neurotransmitters in the Axon Terminal. When the neuron fires, the vesticles in it's Axon terminal's release their load of neurotransmitters. Again, the more of them you have the stronger the signal to make the neuron the other side of the synapse fire.
4) The actual path the Axon's and Dentrites take, snaking from one cell to the next. Litterally the 'wiring'.
There may well be other changes to the neural structure which change the way it behaves, but these seem to be the major mechanisms. Interestingly, a neuron firing tends not only to release neurotrasmitters from it's vesticles, but also to change the structure of the neuron, make it grow more receptors etc
So does Cryonics actually preserve these things?
I'm not in a position to tell. If the cell walls were really being burst, then no, I doubt that the number and distribution of vesticles and receptors would be preserved since those things are built into the cell walls. My impression was that proper cryopreservation did indeed store the cells intact though.
If the cells are stored intact, including the position of the receptors and releasors in the cell walls at each end of every branch of the axons in the neurons, then I think this seems likely to be where the brain's long-term state is stored.
There'll doubtless also be short-term memories which are just feedback loops of signals travelling around the brain. They'll be lost, I would think, just as they were lost in my brother when he spent a few weeks in a coma and remembered nothing until the day before he got beaten up.
Course, I'm nowhere near qualified to really judge either. All I've done is read a bit.
I signed up for the Alcor UK mail-list at the beginning of the year. It's pretty much silent though. As far as I can tell, shipping your dead body to the US is the only way it's really gonna work. I fear that makes it much less viable here than there.
If the topic is the technical plausibility of cryonics then this is on-topic, but I'm hoping to focus a little more narrowly than that, on the specific subject of existing writing that argues against cryonics, its accuracy and quality, and what we can infer from that.
BTW: I too am in the UK and having real trouble!
Yeah, I can't help on finding stuff written on cryo though I'm afraid. That's the topics it'd have to address to have much meaning to me: Whether or not the distribution of those proteins in the cell membrane are stored or destroyed. It might still not work even if it saves those things, but if it doesn't save those things it's not got a chance.
There's some kinda cryonics UK meeting next month which I'd half planned to think about going to. Will give it more thought when I get back from a work-trip next week.
{EDIT: Actually, I'll email 'em now and see what the score is]
My critique of cryonics: other things are more important, and more worthy of my money, than preserving my own life.
Do you also donate all the money you would otherwise spend on health insurance?
I have three buckets of spending:
To note another contrast, the cost of a single full body preservation at Alcor, plus membership dues, appears to be close to the SIAI yearly budget.
Would you say you are a utiliarian - or aspire to be one? [edit: thanks for your reply]
I try not to apply labels to myself since they limit options. I currently have strong issues with the concept of value / utilons.
The real cost of your "Frivolous pursuits" is time. Spend less time drunk or on WoW, use the saved time to work at Burger King and use the money from Burger king to pay for cryonics.
At that point, the equation would be, "work at Burger King and use the money <to donate to cause X>". The same for getting life insurance. And that option is currently not feasible due to the fact that I already have a hard time going to work at the job I have. There's a reason I called it wastage.
I know it sounds like a status grab and signalling and all that jazz, so let me explain: I consider my martyrdom to be a symptom of depression that just so happens to benefit certain organizations. I doubt they'd complain, despite its effects on my life. I used to tell people I didn't know what to do with my money (interesting aside: the dozen or so times I said this, the answer was always the same, nearly verbatim: "give it to me"), then for a while I told people I was going to live forever (cryonics, transhumanism, etc), now I tell people I'm going to save the world.
Ideally, I'd like to do both, but right now the cost of cryonics is outrageous when compared with the (lack of) funding put toward such important issues as existential risk. I honestly believe the values don't even fit on the same scale.
Power to you.
I'd only note that the monthly cost of WoW is roughly half as much as the monthly insurance cost for cryonics.
That's for term life insurance that becomes worthless if you don't die within a specified time period. After that time period, if you don't have $50,000 in the bank, you'll have to pay a much higher premium because you're older.
Yes. And if I had life insurance, I don't see why I wouldn't sign that over to the same organizations I donate to, since the cost is not the monthly dollar figure, but the amount spent on the process. For $150,000, you can preserve one failed human body with a low chance of success, or you can fund existential risk research for most of a year.
If I were some kind of perfect utility maximizer, I would be able to cut out all the non-essentials, but I have akrasia more strongly than I've heard it stated by anyone else on this site. I can actively look at a situation, say to myself, "Y is wrong. It will hurt me, it will hurt the other people involved, and produces no good in the foreseeable future. X is better in every way." And then I take action Y. If I were a theist, I'd say I was possessed, as I walk down the sidewalk ranting at myself, "What are you doing?! You know it's wrong! You don't even want it! Why are you doing it?!" on my way to do Y.
I take my victories where I can get them. I consider the value equation to be very rational - existential risk is far more important than one life. The possibly rationalized part is where I don't do both to mitigate uncertainty. I can see this as potentially a form of cryocrastination brought on by low self-esteem. I can also see it as counteracting the abnormally large emphasis we place on our own continued existence, bringing the value comparison more fully into view... it's just a good thing not everyone feels that way.
This is an implicit appeal to an intuition about a missing dataset. So let me repeat my plea to make this dataset formal! Collect disputes from the past and dig for similar data on them - how many tech arguments by who in their favor, how many against, and so on. And especially - who was eventually right?
Hence TakeOnIt, a database of expert opinions. Over the last few hours I've peen entering in all the expert opinions on cryonics that people have been posting links to:
Cryonics debate: http://www.takeonit.com/question/318.aspx
FYI - Robin Hanson's opinions on TakeOnIt: http://www.takeonit.com/expert/656.aspx
Sorry, that's just not the same thing at all.
It's a start. If it became popular and scaled up, it would provide that dataset.
My point is that the same infrastructure can be used to capture any debate, whether its the current cryonics debate or other various debates in the past. The good thing about having a database of expert opinions is it makes questions like the one you asked easier.
Infrastructure is really not anything like the limiting factor. I'd donate pencils and paper too if that would help, but it won't. Beware overrating the stone in stone soup.
How could we do this? It seems to me that even if you were trying hard to avoid it, you'd have a very hard time not biasing your search in favour of examples that suited what you wanted to prove. Is there some external source of examples you could lean on that would unbias your survey, the way that people publish search terms in public databases when doing surveys of scientific consensus?
This is an issue with data collection on any interesting topic. It doesn't prevent such efforts from being useful. You choose a criteria and collect data that way, others who think your criteria off complain and choose a subset of your data to see if that makes a difference, or go collect more data according to criteria they prefer.
How would you start on a project like this? Serious, not rhetorical question.
This is the best anti-cryonics argument I've heard so far. I largely agree with the replies about why it's wrong, but at least it's an argument rather than a gut "ewww..." or "blasphemy!" or "crazy talk!" reaction.
http://forums.unicornjelly.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2090#p21074
I sort of agree with the argument.
I don't know if they will or won't, but if they do, we'd be a burden and not an asset.
No, I agree with Roko. Some people would probably want us. It's just that we'd be consumption goods rather than capital goods.
Just like kids, really. Most 1st Worlders don't have kids because they are good little workers, they have them because they make them happy. The few dozen cryopreserved people would be a scarce commodity in a world with very few scarcities.
Obviously this would only happen in a nice post-singularity world, or a weird future in which advanced nanotech comes before AI.
Is it such an outlandish scenario that given adequate and safe technology cryonics patients will be revived because of humanitarian and moral concerns? I see no reason why we'd switch to a burden-asset evaluation scheme of human beings when we have moved beyond that a long time ago (or more likely we never really adhered purely to it). As of now, there are rather few slaves around and we mostly refrain from killing retarded infants.
We don't kill many infants, but we do abort lots of fetuses, though. I don't see any obvious reason why we should give a frozen corpse more rights than a fetus. Everyone who is cryopreserved actually did die; reviving one is more like creating a new person than it is like providing medical care to an existing, living person.
At Alcor and CI there is much written about the definitions of death; their preferred version (mine too) is information-theoretic death. To be precise, legal death is the moment the doctors decide to stop caring for the patient, mostly because they estimate the chance of successful resuscitation too low. On the other hand, information-theoretic death is the point beyond which no technology can restore a mind. This definition is a bit more precise as it being vague requires us to consider the possibility of reversing entropy (EDIT: in other words, the finality of legal death is pretty questionable, but we can only argue against the finality of information-theoretic death if there is a way to reverse entropy).
The subjective experience of waking up from cryonic suspension could range from identical to waking up from sleep to having suffered a serious and pervasive brain trauma, depending on the circumstances of suspension and reanimation. I wouldn't automatically categorize reanimated people as newly created persons as I wouldn't do so in the case of sleeping people or victims of brain injury. They are new persons to the extent the continuity between their pre- and post- suspension selves is lost, and I think the same applies to brain injury victims.
Aborting a fetus may or may not be fully moral depending on how developed the fetus is. Killing a zygote is as morally charged as killing a random bacterium. Otherwise, causing suffering to fetuses by abortion is sure a possibility, albeit one that can be reduced by regulations informed by a detailed knowledge of neurosciences.
However, I think the strongest reason why likening cryonics patients to fetuses is ridiculous is that cryonics patients (can) have a huge pile of accumulated life experiences, memories and a unique and rich personality.
[I'm deleting this comment soon. No reason to pick another fight. Maybe I'll take Morendil's advice and write a post about how much I disagree with people assuming moral positions for anyone but themselves and where I see that heading. I don't have time at the moment.]
We have had numerous top-level posts regarding ethics and meta-ethics; what one should do seems intimately related to rationality. This is already a place where we discuss what moral judgements are correct, and has been since its inception. Example
I urge you to err strongly on the side of not deleting comments. If I post something I later regret, I just edit them to say "oops!" For one thing, it's easy to overreact and underestimate their quality.
OK.* I was mainly just trying to prevent another big long sidetrack. Since thomblake already replied, it needs to stay anyway.
*From now on, I'll just edit with an 'oops'.
That doesn't sound quite right, can you be a little more precise? If cryonics depended on breaking the Second Law I would have no time for it.
I meant that information theoretic-death is a point beyond which restoring a person requires reversing entropy. Thus we can only argue against the finality of this kind of death if there is a way to reverse entropy (which seems not to be the case). I admit my sentence there was too opaque.
I think the definition is clearer if you avoid reference to entropy, but I get what you're getting at now. Thanks!
Reversing entropy is insufficient. You have to interact with a past that no longer has any traces in the present. It's not enough to have a way to turn steam into ice cubes. You need a time camera.
Human trafficking is a massive problem that goes mostly unreported in the media.
Further, consider this from the point of view of a parent. It's OK for a 20-something young adult to decide to take this risk, but how can a parent take this risk for their child? I wouldn't have children if I didn't feel as though I had some control over whether they were well taken care of -- how could I send them to an unknown point in the future? Today, there are many people and organizations that exploit children. I'm supposed to glibly pretend that these problems will completely disappear just with future technology? That would be pretty irresponsible.
A lot of people make some argument along the lines of, 'if they revive us, it's because they value us." Yeah. And if they value children, without their mommies?
Can we please focus on one argument against cryonics at a time? Isn't this shifting to a new counterargument whenever an old one is addressed just logical rudeness?
If you don't dispute anything I actually say about technical feasibility, please take this discussion elsewhere.
EDIT: Downvotes are useful information, but comments explaining them are even better - thanks!
I didn't down vote you but I do feel frustrated about the censure. First, I obviously don't think technological feasibility is anywhere near the right question. So I should just ignore this post. (But) secondly, other people are discussing other issues -- this whole thread is all about whether or not we'll get revived and why; it has nothing to do with technology. If I don't respond to this thread because it's off-topic, then I'm just missing an opportunity to further an agenda that is very important to me. I like to follow rules but I'm not likely to follow them sacrificially while others disregard them.
Your first point I think you answer yourself, is that fair? Your second is a good one, but I wonder what the right thing to do about it is. I did reply to the top-level ancestor comment of this one to say "this is off-topic"; are you saying that where discussion blossoms anyway, that railing against in-thread commenters is a mistake? Certainly where top-level comments have started talking about other arguments, I think that is logical rudeness, and you don't seem to disagree; is there anything to be done about it beyond the comment on the top-level comment?
EDIT to make clear: questions are not rhetorical.
An important subtext of the current extended discussion, which in one sense can be seen as fallout from the "Normal Cryonics" article, is how to conduct a debate in a manner that is both epistemically and instrumentally rational.
One major issue, raised by the "Logical rudeness" post, is that ordinary conversation has a nasty tendency to go in circles revolving around each interlocutor's pet anxiety or trigger issue. No one is exempt: I tend to focus on the financial and logistical aspects, and that says something about me.
Rather than think of ciphergoth's intervention as "censure", please think of it as the unpleasant but necessary work of a volunteer facilitator, doing his best to keep the conversation on track.
This conversation touches on an issue that is deeply important to you, that much I understand. Perhaps your interests are better served by your drafting a separate post to lay out this issue as clearly as you can, a post in which you'd set out to apply the thinking tools you've learned from LW or that you wish to introduce to LW?
This just breaks my heart, because I can understand the fear. I wouldn't want to have children if I thought they'd be taken away from me. But if I already had them, I would want them alive first and foremost. Even if that meant they'd be taken away. Living far away > dying in my arms.
I can imagine my kids in bad situations, and in most of those situations I would want them to keep living. If I was dying during some kind of terrible revolution, I wouldn't kill my children to protect them from an unknown future. They're already alive, come what may.
Cryonics feels like a choice again, and for me this is a moral choice -- perhaps a deontological one. I am willing to hear a variety of moral solutions/arguments, I just think this is something that needs address.
I wrote in another comment,
You seem to be thinking as if a person dies, and then cryonics is a way that can maybe bring them back to life. It is more accurate to say that a person loses the capacity to to sustain their own life (and experience it), and cryonics is a way to keep them alive until potential future technology can restore their ability to sustain and experience their life.
By "cryonics feels like a choice again", do you mean it bears emotional similarity to choosing to have children in the first place, more than choosing to let them go on living, and therefore you wouldn't sign your children up to be revived under any circumstances you wouldn't have chosen to have them in the first place?
If so, I hope you will do everything you can to reverse that impression. Think of the frozen people as asleep, comatose, blinking, time-traveling - not dead. They will be revived not as infants, not as new people, not as ontologically unrelated snippets of personhood wearing secondhand names - they will wake up. If your children are frozen and revived, then afterwards, they will be alive. If your children are not frozen and revived, then absent really convenient timing, they will be dead.
Rain, I'm aware of human trafficking and other abuses, which is the reason I said "rather few" instead of "no". But compared to just a few hundred years ago slaves are as rare as hen's teeth.
And yet population nowadays is so much larger than in ancient times so there are claims the absolute number of slaves is currently higher than ever before
Moral standards in general can improve irregardless of the number of people involved. Besides, one could argue that having more slaves is outweighed by having much more non-slaves living good lives. In regard to cryonics: all else being equal I'd favor to be reanimated in a world with low slave to non-slave ratios if I preferred the probability of my becoming a slave to be as low as possible.
Most futures that still have human values will reanimate all cryo patients, if scanning and WBE counts as reanimation.
Disagree that you should be scared rather than curious. Such scenarios are not well worked out.
Earendil wins so hard it makes my ears bleed.
Whoops, I just sent off a "you should join LW" message to Earendil on the board without noting that Earendil was the one who posted the link here!
+1 rationality point for reading comments without checking the author. -1 social point for the faux pas.
I find this to be a silly argument, as it assumes that not much will change about the methods of teaching, or of rejuvenation by the time that these people (who have been frozen) are re-constituted in one manner or another.
True, we would be antiquated and ignorant by the standards of the day, but just going into the process of freezing gives us a mind-set that shows us that we must be ready to abandon just about everything we know when and if we wake again. The Man from 1400 discussed in the article did not have that mindset and it was discussed as if his freezing had been an accident rather than an act of intention.
Plus, there is another reason to thaw the people out who have been frozen: Rule of Law. These people have all signed contracts based upon their conception that when and if we develop the technology to reanimate them, that we will do so. I have not examined a contract from Alcor or another cryonics program, so this may be an implicit assumption of the process.
If that is the Best anti-cryonics argument heard so far, then it is a lousy argument.
Edit: Also, if, when revived, the person is going to have an indefinitely long life, then any re-training would be trivial in terms of cost.
Your reply really is excellent!
Still - and I've been noting this a lot - not to do with technical feasibility. A word I have finally been learning to spell what with writing it so much.
It may seem weird to be so focussed on this one thing what with all the other ways that cryonics can fail, but feasibility is what creates the seriousness barrier. As soon as you think that it stands a really good chance of working, you're over the line with us wacky people, and you're arguing about economics or whether the future wants us or suchlike with real skin in the game.
I'm surprised. I'd have though the biggest barrier to it being taken seriously is the comfort of normality barrier. That is most people are comfortable with the narrative of birth-life-death and anything that takes them outside that makes them uncomfortable and is ignored.
Yes, that's what motivates people to come to a negative conclusion, but I think it's the plausibility issue that allows them not to worry about the conclusions. Not many people say "if my heart stops, don't resuscitate me".
I don't think it is the coming back from the dead that makes people uncomfortable so much the world and technology that is supposed in the future to enable it. The eternal life from that point on also drastically changes the narrative.
I posted an argument here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1mc/normal_cryonics/1i92
I didn't see a major criticism. There were some interesting responses and questions, like what constitutes a 5% increase in quality of life (I don't know; it's a crude metric), but my point stands. You're better off spending your money on marginal increases in quality of life with high probabilities of success than on cryonics.
That argument does not address technical feasibility and is not on-topic for this post. Instead, you assume that feasibility is very low.
Also, my survey doesn't include blog comments - I'm looking specifically for articles and other writing designed to stand alone.
It seems to me that my death is most likely to come from one of 2 scenarios:
1) I become fatally ill with some disease (e.g. cancer) and, after a period of time, succumb to it.
2) I die suddenly as a result of great physical trauma (e.g. car accident)
Obviously other scenarios are possible, but I think these are the most likely. In case 1 I have plenty of time to sign up for cryonics (and could possibly pay for it with a "settlement" of some sort on my life insurance). In case 2, my body and brain suffer massive physical damage, and the cryonics company probably doesn't get involved until there's nothing left to salvage.
In either case, no great harm befalls me for waiting - over time the process will become more plausible (or possibly even proven), or maybe it'll be disproven, and in any event the costs will likely come down as my income and net worth rise... so what's the rush?
Life insurance will become more expensive after you are diagnosed with a terminal illness.
True, but I've got life insurance already - this would just be a matter of "re-purposing" a small percentage of it. Or maybe I'll just pay it out of my pocket after I get sick - the insurance isn't really a critical part of the plan.
P.S. does anyone know the legalities of cryonics? For example, suppose I pay for it with cash advances on all my credit cards, and then "die". Many years later I'm somehow brought back to life... do I still have that debt (plus interest and penalties, of course), or has it been wiped out? Maybe it depends on how I'm brought back: if my physical body were to be brought back, I think most people would expect the debt to stick with me (after all, I didn't really die - I just took a long nap)... but if I'm reincarnated as a computer program, it might be a little murkier...
Why do you want to be frozen only when your death is long anticipated? Why would you prefer not to be frozen if your death was sudden?
Or is there some advantage you get from waiting I'm not seeing?
(Death meaning of course legal death here)
Did you read his original post? Sudden death for an otherwise healthy adult is likely to involve severe physical trauma (car accident) or require an autopsy (unexpected deaths of healthy adults generally do) and so greatly lower your chances of being successfully preserved.
This is one of the reasons I don't think cryonics is a good investment for me in my current situation - based on what I've been able to glean from mortality statistics there is a fairly narrow range of circumstances where I might die in the next 20 years and be in a good state for successful preservation.
Alcor/CI will dispense with the money according to your instructions if there's no chance of cryopreservation. The only difference between relying on this and re-purposing in time is that if you do die young in a cryopreservable way, you get the wrong outcome.
Also, sorting out cryonics is hard enough when you're not terminally ill.
(I can't remember if we actually know CaptainOblivious2's gender - am following your example)
I'm an AGW believer (is that the right term), but I'm skeptical whether there's more money for the pro or anti side. Steve McIntyre is retired and gets by on tips (though admittedly he has not outright denied AGW), how many grants have the RealClimate bloggers gotten? At any rate, I think it's a poor form of argumentation to suggest some side of a dispute is just crap inflated with money while overlooking the substantial amounts on the opposite side.
I added the sub-debates suggested by Earendil, pdf23ds, and ciphergoth, giving us a total of 7 sub-debates for the cryonics debate:
http://www.takeonit.com/question/318.aspx
Once again, let me know if there's a major sub-debate missing. For the sake of cleanliness I'll attempt to edit this post if someone suggests another sub-debate, rather than adding a new post.