The Threat of Cryonics

This might be a inappropriate question, while also seeming like a rephrasing to me.

Do you foresee, that there will be a day in your future, when you will prefer to die on that day over living to see the next one?

I try to grab the FAR notion of 'i do not want to live forever == i want to die at some point' and make it NEAR into 'yeah, that was a fun run, now today is the day it all shall end for me'

The desire to die seem to correlate often with the weaknesses and diseases of old age, which is a different issue than cryogenics. Age related things can be prevented to some degree, and hopefully get much more explored in the near future.

Now the bag of arguments against cryo and for dying can generally be used also to argue for suicide in old age (as seen on a StarTrek:TNG episode), or against medical treatment of those who do not wish it. But I rarely see that side argued. And to me it looks very similar. Cryo as the very slow ambulance ride till a hospital that can treat you has been built.

This must be an example of a much broader theme. One wants X but comes to the belief that X is impossible. Then one stops wanting X, which is probably a healthy response when X really is impossible. When it turns out that X is possible after all, one still does not want X.

You could call it "digesting sour grapes", perhaps.

Apply the reversal test.

Sounds like Off The Table. Specifically, when it's a defience of Sweet and Sour Grapes.

Great. I think in terms of tropes now.

See http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Shut_up_and_multiply

Remember that you can be horribly wrong about what you want.

I would agree - but then i read the comment after yours, by TobyBartels. And, of course, as lsparrish mentioned, there seems to be cultural opposition to it in much literature. Pragmatic concerns like "is this organization legitimate" would not make people deny wanting to live.

Something deeper is involved. Otherwise they would just do the research required to figure out the answer (that it's not a scam) and sign up.

Also, I've seen relatively high status people who have relevant background dismissing this in ridiculous ways (e.g. claiming it is no better than mummification, or "turning hamburger into a cow"). I don't think they would risk their reputation without doing the research if there wasn't some kind of serious curiosity-stopping bias going on.

I think this doesn't explain nearly as much as you think it does. There are only a couple hundred people on the planet actually signed up for cryonics. There are plenty of "sciency" scams which have attracted more people and more money (per person). Why doesn't cryonics attract those sorts of fools?

Here's a list of classic red flags for a scam - first on I found Googling for "scam red flags". Not sure there are that many matches with cryonics.

If you'd like a little science fiction on the subject, try Simak's Why Call Them Back from Heaven?.

I think the real reason is not so much the sunk cost, but the related, anticipated cost of being wrong. If people are going to die, people want to know that so they can say good-bye and wrap things up properly. Not knowing if I'm going to be woken up in 150 years would cause me a lot of anxiety. A gamble, taking a chance, is something you can comfortably do about something that doesn't really matter. Living longer -- living another lifetime -- is something of such value that people can't feel detached about the possibility.

I bring up the subject of cryonics occasionally to see what people think of it. But I feel distinctly guilty when I bring it up around an elderly person. I'm afraid I'm going to upset them, 'Why are you telling me this? You are shallow and flippant about a topic I must seriously face." Or worse, give them hope in something I couldn't actually guarantee. They will either delude themselves into thinking it's definitely going to work, or they will exist in that anxious not-knowing space I just described.

Yes, I've thought of this as the major component in the hostility you see towards cryonics for a while.

Imagine how awkward a funeral would be if the corpse could actually hear the sobs and kind words being spoken over them.

Actually, some people are into that kind of thing. There's a whole subculture that fetishizes consensual, reversible death; it's called 'snuffie.'

The HDM includes the notion that death can be easily determined by experiment in the here and now. So the idea that a brainwave or heartbeat is something that once lost (or once absent for 10 minutes, etc.) is part of it. My thought is that doctors get a certain amount of social status when they are able to give an unambiguous answer on the topic of whether someone is "too far gone" or not.

Lawyers deal with words on paper that say whether someone was dead or not at a specified time. While there's not a technical problem with differentiating legal death from say, moral death, the fact that the HDM more or less corresponds to legal death doubtless makes it easier for such things to be processed.

Writers have to relate their stories to the audience, so if they try to make death a totally bad/avoidable/ambiguous thing there is a high probability they won't connect with the audience. Morals about how evil it is to grasp for immortality are by contrast a highly popular fantasy trope.

The essential threat is to the comfort level of a large number of people. Their entire notion of death is fuzzy, instinctive, and full of prescientific influences and outdated concepts.

Do you have a citation for the claim that breathing in general pre-dated heartbeat as an indication of life?

I actually did make that up based on my intuition on the matter. However I was able to find some support via google. Here is a book that claims that cold body and cessation of breath are predate cardiac criteria: Trauma: Critical Care By William C. Wilson, Christopher M. Grande, David B. Hoyt, pp. 1218

I would say that while social norms regarding what is unacceptable treatment of a corpse vary, there seems to be a prevailing theme of cultures adopting strong norms regarding such treatment. Sky burial is just one such norm. I see no reason cryonics (including neuro) could not be another.

It is interesting that the Wikipedia article claims that the Pirahã do not have a social hierarchy. Perhaps this supports my position that treatment of corpses is primarily status-related (as opposed to a method of avoiding inflicting trauma on the living).

I agree, cryonics is selfish. But no more so than lots of other things people indulge themselves in, like buying a house. It would be hypocritical to single out cryonics specifically, using this criterion as justification. This is not your true rejection.

I would assign the probability of evolution continuing to work (and improve) on the human race as pretty high

Then you probably don't understand evolution very well. Evolution doesn't "improve" things, it makes more of whatever survives and reproduces.

Based on the current trends, I'd say we' re evolving in the direction of "too dumb to use birth control".

Cryonics seems inherently, and destructively, to the human race, grossly selfish. Not only is cryonics a huge cost that could be spent elsewhere helping others

It is not very expensive (and could get even cheaper — see Cryonics Wants To Be Big), and many of its supporters see it in a primarily humanitarian sense (advocating that it be easily and cheaply available to everyone, not just being concerned with having it themselves).

Also, as for "spent elsewhere helping others": there are charities that can reliably save a life for between $200 and $1000. Every time you spend some amount of money on that order or some multiple thereof, do you think about whether what you're doing is more important than that many children's lives? Or is it just with medical procedures that have some chance of saving your life? Or is cryonics in particular being singled out for some reason?

nature and evolution thrive on the necessity of refreshing the population of each species. Though it's speculation, I would assign the probability of evolution continuing to work (and improve) on the human race as pretty high - what gain does the human species have in preserving humans from the 21st century indefinitely, when 23rd century or later humans are better?

If we survive this century without going extinct or experiencing a civilization-level catastrophe, then we will probably overcome evolution (which deals with reproductive fitness in a given environment and has nothing to do with making us "better" as far as our actual values are concerned). We probably will become much better if we make it to the 23rd century, but by technogical means that can be applied just as well to revived 21st-century humans.

Overall, in no way can I think of cryonics benefiting anyone other than the individual's (I think simply genetic) desire to avoid death

Should we not avoid death? Do you avoid death?

I just made a small calculation :

The number of deaths in the US is about 2.5 million per year.
The cost of cryonics is about $30000 per "patient" with the Cryonics Institute.
So if everyone wanted to be frozen, it would cost 75 billion dollars a year, about 0.5% of the US GDP, or 3% of the healthcare spending.
This neglects the economies of scales which could greatly reduce the price.

So even with a low probability of success, cryonics seems to be a good choice.

Thank you for all your replies! I guess I should figure out how to turn on email notifications or something.

A few thoughts.

1) Yes, if cost goes down, then this becomes much more palatable, I agree. However, I didn't mean to strictly imply monetary cost. But yes, overall, a great point. Driving costs down sounds like a reasonable goal.

2) As a few of you pointed out, you're absolutely right that I should be consistent in my claims about selfishness - if the cost of cryonics is equal to that of buying a house, then either I should not buy a house or my objection is elsewhere. I think this comes back to the problem of not considering monetary cost solely. I don't object to buying a house as much, even for the same monetary cost, because presumably I am alive and am productively helping society (at least, I would hope so). As far as vacations to the Bahamas go, yeah, I'm not sure I would choose to take said vacation for similar reasons (seems real selfish to me). So perhaps I'm somewhat consistent (ha).

3) True, evolution does not have a human-style "goal" in mind, and perhaps we have beaten evolution in the sense that it no longer will continue to produce productive results, or at least as productive as our technological advancements can achieve. So, that's definitely a fair point.

4) My feeling on death is that your time is your time, but I guess in retrospect I have no more reason to feel that way than anyone has to feel that they should avoid death. Certainly the point that there is no real reason the current life expectancy is what it is is a good one.

So, all, excellent points, well taken. I think I am to the point where my objection to cryonics is only a little above my objection to vacations in the Bahamas. :) Which is to say, still strong - I can understand that others are likely to want to do so, but I doubt I will be encouraging anyone, much less planning trips of my own.

Cryonics seems inherently, and destructively, to the human race, grossly selfish.

Cryonics is a cost, yes, but living is a cost as well. Is spending my money on cryonics more or less selfish than a 2-week vacation in the Bahamas every year for 10 years? In both cases, my money supports an economy, and I get a benefit --a recharge, in the latter, a possible regeneration in the former-- that will enhance my contribution to society.

If the next couple centuries of human evolution are anything like the last several dozen, the only way we'll be "improved" by evolution is the addition of a few more disease immunities. If they're not it will probably be because (a) we can just directly modify the geonome, and what nature would take millions of years to get around to artifice can do nigh-immediately or (b) some sort of terrible disaster has occured (and even then most of the selective forces will just be for immunities.)

I think it's hard to dispute that there are more pressing uses of limited resources than cryonics. But this is an argument against frivolties in general. It's reasonable to say "we should rob the rich and give to the poor, so that more resources are expended on food and basic medicine than smartphones and frozen heads," if that's where your values lie, but "cryonics is more objectionable than smartphones" doesn't follow.

While I agree with you to some extent, I believe I can play devil's advocate.

Though it's speculation, I would assign the probability of evolution continuing to work (and improve) on the human race as pretty high - what gain does the human species have in preserving humans from the 21st century indefinitely, when 23rd century or later humans are better?

Is it clear that progress through evolution is optimal? Evolution is insensible and doesn't consistently result in linear progress (e.g., we could be wiped out by a virus). In any case, relying on evolution is futile: we seem to be at a new stage of pattern formation where cultural and technical evolution is working at a far greater pace than generational, genetic evolution. Evolution, and any plans that it might have had for us, is falling to the wayside.

the necessity of refreshing the population of each species.

This is not to say that a 70-100 year lifespan is ideal. We spend so much of our productive lifetimes learning, it seems we could be much more productive if the working sector had more productive years before retirement.

Overall, in no way can I think of cryonics benefiting anyone other than the individual's (I think simply genetic) desire to avoid death

What is the value of the group if the individual doesn't matter? Death is something hanging over us that causes a lot of misery, fear and anxiety. Death is a very unpleasant consequence for sentient beings -- I would argue that it should never have been allowed to happen, this combination of sentience and mortality. Wouldn't it be good to fix that problem for all sentient beings, now and in the future?

Though it's speculation, I would assign the probability of evolution continuing to work (and improve) on the human race as pretty high -what gain does the human species have in preserving humans from the 21st century indefinitely, when 23rd century or later humans are better?

Getting from "cryonics might interfere with natural selection" to "cryonics is bad" requires crossing a large inferential distance, with plenty of caveats along the way. Evolution has its own ideas about what is better, and they are often things that humanity would consider worse. Genetic engineering might replace evolution entirely.

Overall, in no way can I think of cryonics benefiting anyone other than the individual's (I think simply genetic) desire to avoid death (maybe it benefits future anthropologists I guess), and the cost of cryonics, given that, is what turns me off so much.

This argument is valid - money spent on cryonics might be better spent on charity. But it isn't valid at all price points. For example, if cryonics cost only $100, then even the small benefit to future anthropologists would be worth it. And the cost gets cheaper as time passes and technology improves, so eventually it will be cheap enough to be worth it; the only question is, how cheap is cheap enough?

I agree that evolution will continue for the human race, though I think a lot of it will become memetic rather than.

However, it's hard to tell what's an improvement and what isn't.

I admit to concerns about increased no-pause longevity-- the same people could stay in charge for a very long time. Institutions are less likely to get refreshed with new ideas.

Cryonics is relatively safe for that problem-- people aren't going to be able to sustain power if they're gone for decades. (Or at least there's some interesting science fiction work to be done figuring out how they could.)

My assumption is that revived people will be a smallish part of the population, and will add variety by keeping old points of view from getting lost.

In particular, artists aren't fungible, and I think it would be an advantage to continue to get new works from the good ones.

Though it's speculation, I would assign the probability of evolution continuing to work (and improve) on the human race as pretty high - what gain does the human species have in preserving humans from the 21st century indefinitely, when 23rd century or later humans are better?

Improve humans in what respect? Do you think that high intelligence is positively correlated in modern society with number of offspring? How about moral character? More attractive people are certainly seen as more sexually desirable, but do they have more children?

Evolution doesn't improve species, it increases their fitness within a particular environment, and it only does so in response to selection pressure. It doesn't matter how wildly successful a person with an IQ of 220 would be, if people with higher IQs do not have better odds of producing surviving offspring, evolution will not make humans smarter, and the same goes for any other measure you might apply to the worth of a person.

In any case, most of the difference between a person now and several generations from now will not be genetic, unless we start tinkering around with human genomes ourselves. Other adaptation mechanisms, such as memes and technology, change much faster.

We can do gene therapy to update the 21st century humans to 23rd century humans.

I find it strange that no one seems to be arguing what my answer is; I want to be cryopreserved because my primary value is my life. In any situation where A is certain death and B is any probability of life, I choose B. This is why your argument is irrelevant given my utility function.

Fair enough, but cryonics opponents who make this kind of argument don't usually do any of those things either. Instead they point out that thesuccess of cryonics isn't 100% certain, and use this as an excuse to ignore the whole issue.

No, that's a bad example. In Catholicism, the bodies of martyrs and saints were (are) exhumed and displayed all the time for the purpose of being exalted and venerated. Indeed, often pieces of their bodies are treated with awe, even ones as unseemly as a severed tongue.

The Cadaver Synod was a humiliation because Formosus's helpless corpse was subjected to a nasty show trial, and because after the trial it did get stripped, 'tortured', and thrown in the water. But the exhumation and display of his corpse in and of themselves weren't the point.

Well, unless those final wishes are to be stored in LN2 in Detroit. That seems to contradict your thesis, appealing as it looks at first glance.

The whole point of cryonics is to ensure it's NOT your final wish.

That line of reasoning is incorrect, I believe. I can imagine seeing someone I love treated that way: that would be distinctly worse than knowing they died painlessly and were treated with respect.

Amended to "direct impact" for clarity. I don't mean to say no individual will feel the impact in any way, only that the person whose corpse it is has no capacity for pain or humiliation at that point.

Well, unless those final wishes are to be stored in LN2 in Detroit. That seems to contradict your thesis, appealing as it looks at first glance.

That's an exception rather than a rule. Being stored in LN2 defaults to being emotionally hard to relate to, and the HDM effect is very emotionally based. Also it has much to do with signaling to the general society. Specific individuals seem to easily disregard it when there is enough money at stake, possibly because the prospect of money dampens the emotions they would otherwise feel.

I'm signed up with Alcor.

why wait until you're dead?

Several reasons:

• Suicide is usually illegal and will get you an autopsy.
• Cryopreservation techniques get better over time.
• Cryonics probably won't work, but the expected value calculation favors signing up.

Second, if indeed it's centuries before a cure for your terminal disease is found, who's going to be checking on your behalf?

The people staffing the cryo facility. You don't just toss some heads in a tank and forget about them. Constant monitoring and maintenance is necessary. You're also assuming that no friends or family sign up, and that you don't make friends with any cryonicists. And you're assuming it will always be expensive to revive people.

And when you're revived, what are you going to do in this future economy? Where are you going to live? That's a separate objection but it's one of the reasons I wouldn't want to do it.

You're talking about a society that uses nanotech or uploading to bring unproductive people back from the dead. You think it likely that life in that society would be worse than death?

PS: Your website gives me a malware warning in Google Chrome.

I'm not (yet) a 'cryonicist', but the answer to the first question seems simple to me: by being frozen while still more or less healthy, you're giving up a variable length of time which you are certain to get, in exchange for improving by an unknown amount your small chances of maybe getting an unknown extra length of time (resurrection does not necessarily imply immortality, after all). You can't put exact numbers on any of that, but enjoying your current life (while hopefully fastening your seat belts) at least until the first signs of fatal disease seems a sensible choice.

I would agree, however, that initiating "live cryonics" procedures makes sense once you're stuck on a deathbed and too tired to lead at least a decent intellectual life.

[Disclaimer: I have bookmarked your post but haven't read it yet, so I apologise if the above was addressed.]

Your second question I subscribe to, and is in fact currently one of my main doubts about cryonics.

Even if cryonics work, won`t everybody die anyway, eventually?

You can make a general theoretical argument for that, based on entropy and the heat death of the universe. But this still allows us all to live very long lives, potentially longer lives than the life so far of the universe since the Big Bang. (And it's so far off that I wouldn't be too confident of our theoretical predictions either.)

If you mean that somebody dying of cancer now will still die of old age after they've been thawed, then this is a risk, but then you simply freeze them again until there's a cure for old age. (And people are working on that.) Remember, you only have to live long enough that medical science learns to extend life faster than you age.

I don't have a problem with researching any suspicions you have, only drawing conclusions without research. FWIW, the players involved seem extremely transparent to me (more so than is merited perhaps).

What sort of information do you feel is being hidden?

We've argued a lot about the advisability of cryonics. This article takes that advisibility as a given and attempts to further discussion among those who agree. If you don't agree, that's fine, but It's OK for an article to move on sometimes.

Note that one could just as easily come up with a two page article about a "Futuristic Life Meme" which represents the cryonics supporters' sense of being threatened by death.

Is there anything particularly remarkable about being threatened by death? I would find that strange, given that threatening someone with death has historically been such a popular form of intimidation.

The analysis of a new, emerging science deserves critique. From what I can tell, this particular critique is essentially ad-hominem, in that it attempts to attack a belief based on the characteristics of the individuals, rather than their arguments.

Cryonics has been "emerging" for over 40 years. People still choose not to think about it, despite lots of exposure to the concept. There has to be a reason. If you think there are rational reasons, I'm interested in hearing what they are.

It trivializes the fact that there are reasons for being reluctant to invest in cryonics. Lastly, this writing conflates cryonics skepticism with unwillingness to invest.

Contrary to popular expectation, it's not particularly expensive. But the real problem I'm attacking is unwillingness to think about the issue. I haven't invested money in this myself yet. I have invested the time and energy to understand it, and come to the conclusion that I should endorse and support it. There's no particularly good humanitarian or ethical reason I can think of not to.

You're right - it's worth noting that the article does not describe all cryonics objectors.

The "protecting family from trauma" theory does not explain why societies hung the bodies of criminals and traitors in public as gruesome reminders of how disgusting and unacceptable their behavior was. A "decent burial" is likewise a social signal of reward for honorable conduct, e.g. in a battlefield.

I have no idea why this comment is being downvoted. Can someone explain?

But why should it?

'Where death is, I am not.'