The wedding of Katie Kirkpatrick
2009-04-22 07:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipsThe story of Katie Kirkpatrick is simultaneously one of the sweetest and saddest I’ve ever read. This is why we need cryonics now.
Original: craschworks - comments
archershipsarchershipsThe story of Katie Kirkpatrick is simultaneously one of the sweetest and saddest I’ve ever read. This is why we need cryonics now.
Original: craschworks - comments
no subject
Date: 2009-04-22 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-22 02:57 pm (UTC)Also, curing cancer by itself will only have modest effects on maximum lifespan. For example, "...eliminating all forms of cancer will add only just over 3 years to the life expectancy of men. Eliminating all forms of ischemic heart disease will increase life expectancy by another 3.55 years, and eliminating combined cancer, heart disease and diabetes increases life expectancy at birth by only 15.27 years..." (1)
To significantly expand maximum healthy lifespan, you have to cure aging. Workable cryonics would be applicable to a much broader range of disease and injury, including aging itself.
(1) http://www.hrt.org/layberg.html
no subject
Date: 2009-04-22 03:59 pm (UTC)1) curing cancer and heart disease
2) realizing true, working cryonics
3) eliminating aging
As most medical practitioners would say that all three are so far completely out of the range of current medical technology that estimating the investment cost of *completing* any of these tasks is impossible. Estimating ROI on work *towards* them is, however, which is why 1) is being pushed on (because in addition to increasing lifespan, it increases quality of life of the people who would have otherwise gotten cancer/had heart attacks), and 3) is being worked on a bit less, but not insignificantly. 2) is not really worked on because most people don't seem to think it's particularly workable, and partial success only has completely tangential incidental benefits (low-temperature materials research, etc...).
It seems to me that saying things like "if we just had cryonics... [almost all medical issues will be dealt with]" is like saying "if we just had completely workable neutron-free fusion reactors... [almost all worldwide energy issues will be dealt with]", except I'll bet that the latter is more doable than the former: a sustained fusion reaction is a hell of a lot simpler than a living thing.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-22 05:16 pm (UTC)Yes, and I think they're wrong about that. There are already people walking around who have spent years at liquid nitrogen temperatures (albeit as embryos), we can cryopreserve individual neurons (and many other tissues), and we can recover rabbit kidneys following perfusion with vitrifiable concentrations of cryoprotectant. All this progress has come about despite funding levels that are minuscule compared to the funding for cancer and heart disease research. Given the huge payoff of workable cryonics, I think it deserves much greater funding and support than it has enjoyed in the past.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 09:18 am (UTC)But is there ANY logic to arguing with the simple statement that putting "life on ice" is not the #1 priority?
There are about 6 billion people on this planet, if just a small percentage of them focused as hard on this problem as they do watching sports, or trying to get laid or loved as on this, it would already be a moot point.
This is not an issue of what is practical, what matters is it is "possible". There is no evidence or reason to believe that this problem, or the bigger problem of immortality is insurmountable, unreasonable, or even unobtainable in our lifetimes. What could be more important than this?
The funny thing is, I'm not even a zealot for this. I'm simply addressing your fundamental framing. And, as far as "medical practitioners" we should care less, this is like asking a house contractor about the invention of new building materials, or a cook about farming practices.
Let's talk to scientists, the people that work their arses off on boring problems and tests so that GPs have something to look up in a book.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 05:09 pm (UTC)I have never talked to scientists *directly* working in the cryo field, but I did ask one of my physics professors about this (Doug Osheroff, phys Nobel '96 for the discovery of superfluid helium, and who should thus have a pretty good understanding of challenges low-temperature materials science and technology), and he seemed to think it was one of those problems like relativistic interstellar flight and hard-AI which, while no reason to think is theoretically impossible, we just don't have the right level of fundamental physics and biology knowledge to make any good progress on right now.
I mean, if we had completely workable fusion reactors, we'd have unlimited clean energy, so by your reasoning, "is there ANY logic to arguing with the simple statement that [commodity fusion reactors] is not the #1 priority?". I think the quality of life of the billions of people on earth would be improved far more by eliminating 99% of all problems related to energy crises than by allowing terminally ill people to be frozen indefinitely until we find a cure for whatever ails them.
Besides, what better way to further exacerbate the population crisis than keep a bunch of people on ice so that as soon as we find the cure for their issue, we suddenly defrost thousands of new people to add to the hospital system.
I'd say that if we're going to invest in some "pie in the sky" "not impossible" idea that could be highly beneficial to the human race, we should invest in self-contained living situations (a la "BioDome"), so we can live off this planet. If that problem is solved, and we aren't constrained by only Earth, I'd say our species has a far better chance of survival than anything like cryogenics or fusion or anything else I can think of.
But you know what? I don't think any of these things are particularly feasible with today's technology, so lets revisit it in another 100 years.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-26 07:10 pm (UTC)OK, well, I'm a scientist, and I have talked to cryo scientist directly (many), I even let them in my home and stuff : ). But my credentials, and even the credentials of others was not my point. And, who either of us talk to is not the point.
You made the statement to talk to doctors, my point there was - let's start by talking to the people that matter here, not to a bunch of "memory machines".
Next, let us never use one person's "belief" of what is or is not feasible, even the "foremost expert" in a field. The very point of a being a scientist is that we stick to the rules. The rules start right up front with "we can't trust ourselves, and must constantly seek peer review, new models, and different ways of posing the problems."
At the meta level, this is why I'm even engaging you on this topic, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as a "CRasch" follower that you are a more than reasonable and intelligent person. So I'm interested in hearing how you weigh and value things.
"is there ANY logic to arguing with the simple statement that [commodity fusion reactors] is not the #1 priority?. I think the quality of life of the billions of people on earth would be improved far more by eliminating 99% of all problems related to energy crises than by allowing terminally ill people to be frozen indefinitely until we find a cure for whatever ails them."
And this where you are jumping from what is "possible" to what is a priority. We are not debating about priority, this is not a serial problem, hence my 6 billion people point. If we only had 1 person doing smart stuff, we would probably to pick very carefully, and very quickly, what that person should be doing, and most importantly, we would ask THAT person if we were right. But we have 6 billion people, and most, in fact almost every single one, are NOT thinking regularly about what is important on this planet. We need to raise a generation of bigger thinkers.
"Besides, what better way to further exacerbate the population crisis than keep a bunch of people on ice so that as soon as we find the cure for their issue, we suddenly defrost thousands of new people to add to the hospital system."
Please, really, and in a "John Stuart on one of the last episodes of Crossfire" type of way, never offer this as your argument again... It is like having a perfectly good argument and you threw out there "Yo' momma." We have plenty of room to store people, it takes close to no resources in the grand scheme of things, we can chose when to take people out of storage, and many tings can change "tomorrow". 1/4 of this planet could be wiped out in a week from some silly move by a biologist, or by a duck fucking a pig who is two timing a human.
"pie in the sky" This is your opinion so far, and admit it, you have not "really" given this a lot of thought. Right now this is shoot from the hip reaction to this idea right now for you. That is ok, because this takes a little time to set in. In fact, some times ideas we take for granted require a violent adoption phase before it clicks just how important it is.
As to BioDomes, I support you, better yet, I supported (directly) Roy Walford when he actually did something about it (see "BioShpere 2") . He agreed with you, AND he was a supporting of life extension, it is almost like someone can do both in their life times : ) , right?
"But you know what? I don't think any of these things are particularly feasible with today's technology, so lets revisit it in another 100 years."
How about we fight a little harder right now, so you and I have a "chance" at something better. Again, 6 billion people on this planet, we just need a small percent to take an active interest, to "think" about what is important, and it starts (for me) with cutting though the self deprecating and self destructive behaviors and mindsets of just my own peers.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-22 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-22 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-23 01:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-23 02:01 am (UTC)