The Case for Freezing Grandma

[archerships]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the crazy one, and everyone else is sane.

You see, I have a friend, let's call her "Amelia". And Amelia's grandmother is quite sick. She could die soon.

So I suggested that Amelia sign her ailing grandmother up for cryopreservation (aka cryonics) with Alcor. To which "Thomas", a member of Amelia's Livejournal peanut gallery, responded:

or better yet, phrenology! puh-leeze. Why waste your money on reincarnation when you can live life now, and when your time is up, help some folks and causes you love.

Now, I don't interact much with Thomas, but most of his past posts and comments seem cogent. And although I like to think of myself as a sharp-eyed skeptic, quacks are notoriously incapable of self-criticism. And quacks frequently denounce other quacks. "Astrology? * snort * What a load of hooey. Now take a look here at my latest model, The Perpetual Motion 2000." So my general skepticism is no guarantee that I'm not riding bareback on my own hobby horse, cryonics.

Could Thomas be right?

The answer is "Of course not." However, his is a common opinion. And cryonics does bear some resemblance to phrenology and other quackery, due to the practical difficulties of testing its claims. So it's worth examining why I think cryonics is not quackery.

First, we must ask "What makes for a valid scientific theory?" A philosopher of the Popperian persuasion might answer that a good theory is one that has withstood repeated tests of falsification. So we then have to ask:

1. What claims does each theory make?
   
2. Are they falsifiable?
   
3. Have they been falsified?
   

Phrenologists made several claims, many of which actually turned out to be more or less true (in particular, the notion that the brain is divided into a number of regions, each specialized for a different function).

However, the claim for which phrenologists are most well-known -- that you can predict someone's personality traits by the shape of their skull -- found no supporting evidence. Thus, that particular practice is legitimately rejected as a waste of time and money, in my opinion.

On the other hand, cryonics claims that:

1. "you are your brain" -- the most important parts of your identity are determined by your brain's neuronal patterns
   
2. "cryonics can preserve your brain" -- current cryonics techniques can preserve those patterns after legal death
   
3. "future tech could repair your brain" -- future technologies will be able to repair the damage caused by extreme whole body frostbite, the diseases of aging, and your proximal cause of death
   
4. "cryonics companies can survive long enough" -- current cryonics service providers will survive long enough and care enough to revive you when the technology exists to repair your brain.
   

I believe the claim "you are your brain" is fairly uncontroversial claim amongst most neurobiologists.

The truth of the other claims has yet to be determined. Can they be falsified? Theoretically, yes. Unfortunately, the human lifespan is much shorter than the likely duration of the experiment it will take to demonstrate the efficacy of cryonics (or lack thereof). You would have to a) freeze people now, b) wait 200 years, and c) see if anyone was revived.

The question then becomes: do you want to be part of the control or part of the experimental group? This is little different from the decision that terminal AIDS or cancer patients have to make when deciding whether to participate in experimental drug trials.

Your answer to that question will depend on:

1. your estimation of the probability of revival
   
2. the subjective value you place on those potential additional days of life
   
3. the cost of cryonics (both monetarily and otherwise)
   
4. the value you place on supporting cryonics, independent of your own revival.
   

I will deal here mostly with the question "What reason do we have now to believe that cryonics patients could ever be revived?"

First, is there any support for the claim that "cryonics can preserve your brain"? Has any human tissue been frozen and successfully revived?

There are already people walking around now who spent part of their early existence as embryos frozen at liquid nitrogen temperatures (minus 196°
C). They could've stayed at that temperature indefinitely. A wide variety of cell types and tissues (sperm, eggs, embryos, skin, corneas, pancreatic tissue, kidney slices) have been frozen and successfully revived.

I myself have assisted in experiments in which rabbit kidneys were loaded with cryoprotectant, cooled to minus 32° C, rewarmed, flushed, then auto-transplanted back into the donor rabbit (so the treated kidney was providing renal function all by itself). Approximately 50% of those rabbits survived. We also know via experiments in hypothermic surgery that the brain can survive hours with no detectable electrical activity.

Derivatives of the above technologies are being used with current Alcor patients. Although the patients cannot be revived now, electron micrographs of the neuronal structures of brains preserved with current technology suggest that much of the pattern is being preserved.


Could "future tech repair your brain?" We can observe the history of medical and scientific research over the past hundred years, and note that, among other things, we're increasingly able to a) manipulate our genetic code, c) understand how our brain works, and d) manipulate, repair, and create structures at the molecular level. With technologies such as somatic cell gene therapy, heart resuscitation, organ transplantation, MRI, heart/lung bypass among many others, we can save lives now that would've surely been lost a hundred years ago.

Are there any reasons to believe that the advance of medical research will slacken a hundred years hence? Barring catastrophic societal collapse, it seems plausible to me that the trend will continue, and future physicians will be able to cure injuries that are impossible to treat effectively now (including extreme whole body frostbite and aging). For an extended (if dated) discussion of the possibilities, see Ralph Merkle's paper Molecular Repair of the Brain, in which he argues that advanced nanotech assemblers will be able to repair ice damage at the molecular level.

In another repair scenario, advances in robotics and
non-invasive imaging suggest that we might be able to avoid biological repair altogether, and instead simply upload the preserved minds directly into advanced robots.


The claim that "cryonics companies can survive long enough" is the weakest, in my opinion. It could be hundreds of years before medical technology is capable of fully repairing today's cryopatients. Few businesses survive more than a hundred years. The two active cryonics organizations, Alcor and the Cryonics Institute, have fewer than two thousand members between them. They could easily be snuffed out by government regulation or poor management. However, you have to start somewhere, and not joining because you fear the organization might be too small to succeed is a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Given all the uncertainties involved, cryonics is a long shot gamble. The patients frozen today may never be revived. But for patients that are dying now, there is no other scientific alternative that offers any hope at all.

Moreover, the odds could readily be improved. To date, cryonics research has received a piddling amount of financial support compared to its potential reward. I would guess that less than a $150 million dollars has been spent on all cryobiological research since the beginning of the century, of which, only a small fraction was spent on research directly relevant to cryonics. Far more has probably been spent on treatments for athlete's foot.

However, since a portion of each patient's payments go to pay for the little research that is being done, each additional patient has a big impact on the future efficacy of cryonics.

So if cryonics works, Amelia's grandmother could potentially have hundreds of years (or more) to help the folks and causes she loves.

But even if Amelia's grandmother doesn't make it herself, by signing up for cryonics, she could serve as a medical guinea pig pioneer who helps advance the research that may one day help save Amelia.

And, to me, that's a wonderful thing to do for someone you love.

Also, I'm not a quack.

Comments

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

I actually didn't realize there were people "against" cryonics. I mean, what the hell has one got to lose?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

* Cryonic suspension with Alcor costs in the neighborhood of $150,000 for a head only. $150 K = less/no inheritance for grandkids

* Cryonics suspension is invasive. Done properly, the cryonics team will be set up to begin immediate blood washout and cooling as soon as legal death is declared. As a result, the patient's bedrooms/living rooms look like mini-OR's and there are a bunch of strangers waiting around for them to die. This is not the peaceful going "into that great sleep" that many people or family members imagine, and they resent it.

* Frankly speaking, once Grandma is dead, you don't have to worry about her anymore. If she's cryopreserved, you have to worry about a whole lot of things -- is the cryonics company financially solvent, are they keeping the dewars topped up, are they doing the proper research, etc. In addition, once you grant that cryonics may work, you might feel guilty if you don't sign your parents up. Rather than deal with that responsibility, people reject cryonics out of hand.

* Many people think cryonics won't work, and therefore react to it the same way they do to other forms of quackery (naturapathy, chiropracty, Greenspan's fiscal policy, etc.)

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

At least you have some insight into valid objections to cryonics. You haven't finished drinking the Kool-Aid :)
The family seem to lose on this deal. The only possible benefit is that they might one day be revived too and live contemporaneously with their loved one. If they are not currently signed up or expect to live for several more decades this seems a rather nebulous benefit.

[w-e-quimby.livejournal.com]

Plus, it's just a little freaky.

[pbrane.livejournal.com]

* $150K less used on enjoying *her own* life while she still had it, if she didn't feel like leaving it to the grandkids, or feel like donating to various worthwhile charities.

* not only is it invasive for the family, but if this thing fails (as it most likely will), the invasiveness is detracting from the remaining quality of life *of the patient*, forget about the family who'll resent it - I'd resent spending my last few hours (or more, if they miscalculate how long I've got) to live. Also, if you do the whole-body suspension, no organ donation.

* I think there's a way better way of phrasing this complaint: death is hard for anyone to deal with. Most likely, the patient is never going to be brought back, and this is death, yet the company is telling you to treat it like she's maybe just maybe gonna come back. The greiving process is not equipped to deal with uncertainty. While I know you'd clearly like to avoid taxes, I doubt it's psychologically healthy to actually try and believe you can beat death.

Conversation with Grandma's grandson Bobby:

"When are we going to see Grandma again?"

"Well, Bobby, most likely never, because she's dying, and this was our last visit to the hospital, remember? But she's being frozen, so maybe if in a long long time they figure out how to revive her, she'll come back!"

"Wow, great! Like next summer?"

"No... probably after you're dead, actually."

"Oh... but then can we all get frozen right now, so we can get woken up with her?"

"Um... no, we can't do that, we need to wait until we're going to die naturally, and then we can get frozen, because this freezing process might not work properly (or the company could go under, or the Theocratic States of America might declare it illegal, or their power could go out, or natural decay, even in cryogenic state cause irreprebal harm over the course of a century or two...)"

"Oh... well, then when Freddy Fish and Rover die, we need to make sure to remember to freeze them!"

...

It's only more illustrative to use a child as the example. Similar psychological and philosophical issues will arise in adults. I'm not speaking as a psychologist or philosopher, but someone who's dealt with death (mother, when I was a teenager; best friend's father, also teenager; close friend, 20 something; grandfather, also 20 something).

I guess it really comes down to this: clearly we all want to live more. If we feel that living more is worth giving up fatty foods and drugs and booze (beyond one drink per day), then we do that. If we feel that living more is worth reducing the risk of dying by not flying, or driving, and can deal with the compensatory loss of quality of life, we do that.

But when you then start spending more and more of your resources and mental energy thinking about ways to prolong your life, as you're getting older, you may reach a point of diminishing returns, where you're actually spending *more* time researching gerontology than you actually get back in extra hours of life.

At this point, you're only winning if you actually *enjoy* studying gerontology. If you are geeky enough to actually *like* cryogenics, then by all means, read up on it, have fun! But my claims above about the psychology of death would argue that people who spend their time thinking about non-theoretical cryogenics *applied to yourself as you start nearing your deathbed*, trying to calculate how easily you can afford to drop $150K that could go to their grandkids college-fund, will most likely not be "having fun" researching this.

They've reached well past the point of diminishing returns, and are spending their final weeks pretending they're going to come back, which is just as bad a form of denial as the religious nutcases who think they're going to heaven.

Maybe that's my big problem with this. It's turning Science into yet another quack religion. No evidence that this will work, but spend your time telling yourself to "have faith" that it'll work, just shell out your couple hundred grand, and trust that this for-profit company will always be around to keep you on ice.

Hmmm... dubious.

[tacit.livejournal.com]

"* Cryonic suspension with Alcor costs in the neighborhood of $150,000 for a head only. $150 K = less/no inheritance for grandkids"

Actually, that's not quite true. The going rate for cryogenic suspension at Alcor is currently $50,000 for head only, or $120,000 for full body. Almost all the Alcor membors have elected to pay for this with a life insurance policy; you take out a policy in that amount, with Alcor as the benificiary.

In addition, Alcor membership is $400/year. This fee is reduced or waived in some cases, such as for college students.

look into Cryonics Institute

[jozafiend.livejournal.com]

The Cryonics Institute is significantly cheaper, and while there are debates about the benefit/lack thereof for procedures Alcor undertakes, I like CI because
1) they don't only freeze heads (less freaky factor)
2) they own their own land. May not seem big, but try relocating a bunch of frozen bodies if you lose your lease.
3) I've visited the facilities, and trust the founder/managers - totally personal choice.

But the over 100k savings is a huge deal to many people and is more palatable for the living relatives.

http://www.cryonics.org/emergency.htm

[hydrozoa.livejournal.com]

What a load of hooey.

i read this as "What a load of honey," which is now so totally going into my phrasebook.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Woohoo! I inadvertently coined a non-cliche!

[white-lies.livejournal.com]

i took a philosophy course once that focused on science and what does/does not constitute something being 'quackery' and i don't think we ever, ever mentioned that cryogenics had anything to do with quacks. phrenology, astrology, ufology, and scientology, yeah... but not freezing Grandma.

heck, i say, if you can afford it, go for it. but then again is it really ethical to bring someone back to life just to do experiments on them? well i guess if that's how they wanted it, then sure.

forgive me, i have not really thought about this before so i am just talking my way through it.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, cryonics is becoming more and more accepted. But it still occasionally gets painted with the brush of quackery.

Yes, it would be unethical if cryonics patients were experimented on without their consent. However, cryonics patients have to sign an inch thick stack of forms that say, in essence "We'll do our best! But this is an experimental procedure that may not work at all. Or you could come back as a head in jar. Or a vegetable. Be warned!"

[perich.livejournal.com]

Rationality in one arena does not guarantee rationality in all arena. A person who adheres to rigorous standards of logic in one field (economics, for instance) may still buy answers in other fields based on sentiment or immediate emotional response ("guardian angels," for instance).

I might go so far as to cynically assert that strict rationality in one arena can often hinder rationality in other arena. For instance: my economic hypotheses are logical, consistent and have stood the test of time. Thus I label myself a "rational person," since I've demonstrated a rigorous capacity for reason. So labelled, I lose the incentive to continually evaluate my conclusions, and may usher new assertions into the herd that is my mind without vetting them fully.

I think we know plenty of people who might fit this description. I might even be one of 'em.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's true. After all, by our lights, religion is irrational, yet there exist many fine religious scientists.

My own yardstick of rationality may indeed be warped. But neither can I calibrate off of other people's yardsticks -- most seem even more warped than my own.

It's a difficult problem to solve.

What is the point? (Playing devil's advocate)

[declanmcmanus.livejournal.com]

When you come back, what will you have?

When you are legally declared dead, you are usurping property ownership, correct? Do you set up a trust for yourself for when you come back? What happens to those assets? Couldn't some government claim the assets of the "legally declared dead" while they are frozen? is anyone confidne tthey can pick the right stocks and investments for an economy 200 years in the future? What if an unscrupulous "dead fund" money manager squanders the loot? Won't that be a nasty thing to learn on re-awakening?

If you are revived in 200 years, couldn't that mean you are revived penniless and feeble? Aren't you still going to be a revived living person who has aged "x" number of years, and is now past your prime economic productivity?

Wouldn't most of your knowledge and social skills be at best quaint, and at worst totally irrelevant and useless in the much-changed-over-time society?

Who is going to recognize you when you are revived? Other "icicles" recently thawed? Will your descendants welcome you with open arms, or bemoan the new added burden of a clueless old fogie from the past doddering around expecting to be assisted with all the new gadgets and social memes.

Would you exist only as a detached head, helpless in some lab somewhere? Would your revived head be "property" of the organization that brought you back?

Assuming the technology will be in place, how much thought goes into the other logistics? Isn't cryonics really only an option for the very wealthy and very optimistic?

Re: What is the point? (Playing devil's advocate)

[tacit.livejournal.com]

"When you come back, what will you have?
When you are legally declared dead, you are usurping property ownership, correct?"

Not necessarily. Some countries allow property or trust ownership in perpetuity. Many Alcor members set up trust funds in these countries, which are managed by a trust fund in the US or overseas. There are trust fund management firms with 200-year track records; Alcor itself is currently investigating partnering with such a management firm as well.

"Couldn't some government claim the assets of the "legally declared dead" while they are frozen?"

The legalities are complicated, but in general, the answer is "Trust-managed assets are protected."

"is anyone confidne tthey can pick the right stocks and investments for an economy 200 years in the future?"

If you're picking stocks, then almost any portfolio is going to profit over a 200-year period. Stocks are bad short-term investments, but good long-term investments.

"What if an unscrupulous "dead fund" money manager squanders the loot? Won't that be a nasty thing to learn on re-awakening?"

It's possible. Your best bet is to choose an established trust fund management firm with a long and respected history. Life comes without guarantees.

"If you are revived in 200 years, couldn't that mean you are revived penniless and feeble?"

The odds that you'll be feeble are quite small. Nanotech medicine able to repair a vitrified brain will also be able to repair most any damage so long as the tissue is not totally destroyed.

"Aren't you still going to be a revived living person who has aged "x" number of years, and is now past your prime economic productivity?"

Compared to repairing damage caused by the suspension process, repairing damage caused by aging is a cakewalk. You won't be revived old and decrepit, because if the technology to reverse aging-related issues doesn't exist, the technology to revive you doesn't exist.

"Wouldn't most of your knowledge and social skills be at best quaint, and at worst totally irrelevant and useless in the much-changed-over-time society?"

Yes. You better be a fast learner, and psychologically prepared to deal with the culture shock! :)

"Who is going to recognize you when you are revived? Other "icicles" recently thawed? Will your descendants welcome you with open arms, or bemoan the new added burden of a clueless old fogie from the past doddering around expecting to be assisted with all the new gadgets and social memes."

The only answer I have is: Who cares? I'll take "alive and friendless" over "dead" any day of the week! Awakening in a place where nobody knows me can be fixed; I meet people easily. Dead? Not so easy to fix.

"Would you exist only as a detached head, helpless in some lab somewhere? Would your revived head be "property" of the organization that brought you back?"

A technology that can revive a frozen brain can almost certainly provide a body--organic, inorganic, teleoperated, or otherwise--of some sort; but even if it can't, alive still beats dead in my book.

As for being property: Unlikely. A society that does not value human life will probably not invest the resources required to revive you at all. You aren't going to wake up in a society that doesn't have any regard for human life, because such a society won't revive you. There'd be no point. You wouldn't even be valuable as slave labor--too expensive.

"Assuming the technology will be in place, how much thought goes into the other logistics? Isn't cryonics really only an option for the very wealthy and very optimistic?"

A lot more thought goes into the organizational, financial, and social issues than you realize.

It requires little in the way of wealth to do this. Most people pay for the cryonic suspension by taking out a life insurance policy, payable to Alcor on death. Between that and establishing a trust fund, it's possible to cover your assets financially with relatively little investment; life insurance sufficient to pay for the suspension will cost a person in good health about $400 a year, with another $400 a year in Alcor dues. $800 a year is within the reach of most people who want it badly enough.

Re: What is the point? (Playing devil's advocate)

[fishsupreme]

A lot of this just depends on your own personality and point of view. Quite simply, some people value life more than others; some people get tired of life after a while and others don't. Some people can comprehend why others commit suicide, and others can barely conceive of the notion. Personally, I'm pretty high on the value-of-life scale; I love existing, and I enjoy every moment of it, even the "boring" parts.

When you come back, what will you have?
Consciousness. Everything else is just a bonus.

What if an unscrupulous "dead fund" money manager squanders the loot? Won't that be a nasty thing to learn on re-awakening?
Eh, so be it. I'll make more money. Frankly, it had never really occurred to me that if I came out of cryopreservation I'd be rich. If after being cryopreserved after dying of some fatal disease, I was awakened and told "We have bad news; all your money is gone, you're completely destitute," my answer would be, "Holy shit! I'm not dead!"

If you are revived in 200 years, couldn't that mean you are revived penniless and feeble?
Reversing the "feebleness" of aging is probably vastly easier than reviving a frozen dead person. If they can manage the latter, they'll almost certainly be able to manage the former. And if not? Well, they'll manage it eventually, and I'll be not dead. I'll take feeble over dead any day.

Wouldn't most of your knowledge and social skills be at best quaint, and at worst totally irrelevant and useless in the much-changed-over-time society?
Yep! I'll learn. And I'll enjoy learning a lot more than I'd enjoy being dead.

Who is going to recognize you when you are revived?
I've made friends before, I'll do it again. If I were cryopreserved I'd try my best to make sure my wife was, too; I'd really like to still have her around. As for everybody else? I'll make new friends. And if my wife couldn't make the journey with me, I'd be devastated, but I'd still want to be alive.

Would you exist only as a detached head, helpless in some lab somewhere?
Once again, if they can bring back a frozen dead guy, they should be able to do something about growing him a body. It's probably an easier problem.

Assuming the technology will be in place, how much thought goes into the other logistics?
Quite a bit. However, it would be foolish to consider it a sure thing. As much as I like the idea, I think the overall chance for success, were I cryonically frozen, is about 10 to 1 against. (That is, admittedly, an unscientific estimate.) Considering the scientific hurdles, chance of the company going under, regulatory issues, chance humanity nukes itself into oblivion, etc., etc., it's somewhat of a longshot. So I wouldn't be paying $150,000 for immortality; I'd be paying $150,000 for a 10% chance of coming back. Honestly, to me, that's still well worth it. For some people it would not be.

Re: What is the point? (Playing devil's advocate)

[pbrane.livejournal.com]

10%, huh? I'd ask for a second opinion from someone in the field of cryonics before banking on that (order of magnitude, even).

In answer to crasch's question - I'd put the odds still at the "unimaginably small" level, and as a particle physicist, I can imagine pretty small.

Seriously, until I see a mammal brain of *any sort* revived, or AI of any sort working (to demonstrate we know how consciousness works to some degree), my first approximation at an odds estimate would be "dead zero" (no pun intended).

[pbrane.livejournal.com]

The odds that you'll be feeble are quite small. Nanotech medicine able to repair a vitrified brain will also be able to repair most any damage so long as the tissue is not totally destroyed.

Be careful what you claim future medicine "will be able to" do. The amount we don't know about the brain is pretty huge. It could be that "nanotech" could revive the brain, repair its *functionality* yet not bring back signifigant parts of the personality, memory, etc... I.e. the person who comes back wouldn't be anything like you.

Compared to repairing damage caused by the suspension process, repairing damage caused by aging is a cakewalk. You won't be revived old and decrepit, because if the technology to reverse aging-related issues doesn't exist, the technology to revive you doesn't exist.

Unless turns out that organic neurons have a fundamental lifespan related to the fact that they use mitochondria in the production of energy, and for whatever reason, it means you can never make a brain last more than X amount of years; and you get revived in a time when they still don't know how to "export" brain data to a computer.

I'm not saying this kind of thing is "impossible" or complete quackery, but maybe I should compare it to... alchemy. Technically, you can turn lead into gold, it wasn't *impossible* what they were doing, it just wasn't going to work that way because they didn't understand how "lead" and "gold" really worked, it was *way* too soon for that.

In all likelyhood, by the time they figure out how to freeze and revive brains, they'll also have discovered that 21st century cryogenic techinques that work on non neurologically dense organs is completely ill-equipped to preserve the right structures for revival. Eventually, around the same time that these technologies start working, the companies will also be sending out sad press releases to the families of the early clients saying that the early attempts will never be revivable.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, in retrospect, turning lead into gold was impossible using the tools of the time, and is uneconomical even today. But, a priori, how were the alchemists to know that? How could they have learned if they didn't try?

And even though they failed, didn't they learn a lot about chemistry that later proved useful?

[pbrane.livejournal.com]

The alchemists are thus a good example: the *evidence* of the time was that they had no clue what they were doing. If they'd looked at it more rationally, they'd have seen this - not a priori, but once they sit down to try and write out the equations that would yeild the transformation, they'd reallize they didn't have squat for theory. They just didn't understand the microphysics of matter back then, so they had basically zero chance of success.

Sure, they learned plenty, but their time would have been better spent trying to figure out how matter worked via more direct means.

The analogy goes of directly: we may know plenty about freezing. But we are quite solidly in the dark ages when it comes to understanding the basics of consciousness. The microscopic nature of:

* memory
* awareness
* emotions

Is completely in its infancy. What this money would be far better spent on is simple fundamental neurological research. Talk to me again once we understand enough about consicousness to (non-invasively, preferably) extract memories from someone's brain and put them on a computer, or in someone else's brain. That would show progress on what we need to know before there's any hope of reviving a human brain.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Those bodies in your freezer? Those are not your patients....:>

[greatdictator.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a almost 30 something, I think I'll be fine with the, hopefully, 80 to 90 years I'll have in this life. Cryo ain't my thang but I liked that movie Vanilla Sky (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0259711/) . . .

Cryonic revival

[(Anonymous)]

The chances of being able to successfully reviving a frozen corpse (corpsical - as Larry Niven called them) in the far future and curing what killed them are better than zero, that is for sure. There however remains one other obstacle to revival - who will want to revive and cure these people? Sure once the future has the tech' to try it someone is going to have a go to see if it can be done. Further if you have some one like Einstein or Richard Feynman on ice, the world could well want to revive them for there unique thinking abilities. But what about you and me. If my great grandfather was in cryogenic storage, getting out for a chat would be wonderful but who would pay for the cost of him until he could be educated to deal with the modern world and pay his own way, would he want his house back? Not a major problem for one old farmer but multiplied a million times my bet is the future will vote to keep them in storage

[cactus-jess.livejournal.com]

i didn't even know this post was here until today.
i used to work at alcor, in fact it's what i moved out here to the desert to do.
i am currently ambivalent about cryonics-- while i am still a member, i have some negative feelings about alcor because of the politics of the place; however, my father is a past alcor president & current board member.
my husband & i are funding our own whole body suspensions via life insurance-- our policies are for $150k and we pay roughly $300/yr for the policies.

feel free to read some of my backdated journal entries, though some of them are quite boring, you may find some interesting posts there from my alcor days. i worked there from march of '01- april of 2002 as an admin associate and webmaster. i was also part of the surgical team that performed the suspensions, and i was able to be part of 9 suspensions.

being frozen, to me, beats the heck out of the alternatives. at least if you're frozen you have a chance at coming back-- if you're a pile of ashes or worm food, there's no way in hell you're ever going to be of benefit to yourself or anyone in the future for research purposes or anything.