|
|
|
bjones
Skeptic Friend
Australia
82 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2001 : 01:57:45
|
Poll Question:
(Sorry I had to repost this poll, because the sentences were cut short and made little sense.)
The question is what are your views on cryonic suspension.
|
| Results: |
| Medical advances will revive people in the future. |
 [21%] |
11 votes |
| A slim chance it will revive people in the future |
[21%] |
11 votes |
| Do not waste your money, it is pure psuedoscience. |
[50%] |
26 votes |
| It may solve mysterious diseases in the future, for future medicine research. |
[8%] |
4 votes |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 52 counted »» |
Last Vote:
10/15/2005 20:07:29 |
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2001 : 05:45:38 [Permalink]
|
As one is frozen, ice crystals form, ripping and tearing and making minced meat of one's tissue within every cubic inch on one's body.
The ability to repair all this damage on almost a molecular level would be quite a feat. I say that reviving a frozen cadaver would be as close to impossible as I'm willing to call something.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
 |
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 00:47:27 [Permalink]
|
With cyronics they freeze the person very quickly so that the ice crystals don't take up more volume then the water.
They also take their blood out and replace it.
As for reviving them. Nano-tech could be used (we probably will have it in a hundread years if we're still here).
The best thing about cyronics is that it actually could work. Unlike the afterlifes that religion has. Sure it would require quite a bit of our technology to revive people but we could freeze them now and wait for technology to advance enough.
So the question really is: Will technology advance to the point at which cyrogenics can be done in both directions?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
gdaye
New Member
Canada
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 08:15:25 [Permalink]
|
It must be developed - how else do we get colonists to distant planets without some form of deepsleep? (assuming we can't create an FTL drive of some kind).
Nolle Illegitimus Carborundum |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2001 : 00:02:45 [Permalink]
|
We don't need cyrogenics to get people to distant planets. In fact we wont have to do that for a few thousand years.
There are many other ways we could get people to other stars without using cyrogenics.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
bjones
Skeptic Friend
Australia
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2001 : 18:01:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We don't need cyrogenics to get people to distant planets. In fact we wont have to do that for a few thousand years.
There are many other ways we could get people to other stars without using cyrogenics.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer.
Cryogenics for any hope resurrection back to life in the future is pseudoscience and always will be. But while scientists were reseaching in to the Spanish Flue epidemic, which killed more people than WW I then then only hope was a cemetary in the high Arctic in Alaska where the corpes of those who died from the desease lay preserved in the perafrost. This may by one avenue of use for Cryogenics.
Bob
Remember: when you die your philosophy dies with you
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2001 : 00:00:59 [Permalink]
|
If you want to think of a legitimate area of scientific reserach as psuedoscience you can do so.
There are real scientific theories on how it might work. The idea is taken seriously by scientists.
Isn't that enough to at least say it might be real science?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2001 : 22:51:07 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Cryogenics for any hope resurrection back to life in the future is pseudoscience and always will be.
[quote]
I'm sorry buts thats quite the moronic statement. How many here think nanotechnology will EVER exist? If you don't think it will exist, then I don't think your I.Q. is sufficient enough to be posting on this site. 1) Major Universites throught the US now have nanotech curriculums. The US government is spending hundreds of millions to develope nanotechnology. How many of you have ever visted http://www.zyvex.com/ ?
2) It is well established that with the advancement of nanotech patients who are cryonically suspended will be able to be repaired and revivied. To date there has not been one, (not one) argument (in detail & unrefuteable) which has been able to explain how nanotech & cryonics would not work!
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2001 : 23:48:36 [Permalink]
|
Can you please try to argue your point without calling people stupid?
------------
Victory Not Vengeance |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 20:49:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[quote]
Cryogenics for any hope resurrection back to life in the future is pseudoscience and always will be.
[quote]
I'm sorry buts thats quite the moronic statement. How many here think nanotechnology will EVER exist? If you don't think it will exist, then I don't think your I.Q. is sufficient enough to be posting on this site. 1) Major Universites throught the US now have nanotech curriculums. The US government is spending hundreds of millions to develope nanotechnology. How many of you have ever visted http://www.zyvex.com/ ?
2) It is well established that with the advancement of nanotech patients who are cryonically suspended will be able to be repaired and revivied. To date there has not been one, (not one) argument (in detail & unrefuteable) which has been able to explain how nanotech & cryonics would not work!
Are you refering to the 1959 lecture given by Richard Feynman, (the Zyvex link), There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom?
I would consider the possibility that nanotech will exist - I would doubt that nanotech will be all that is implied by Drexler.
Oh and the argument from authority about the Universities offering nanotech courses - they also offer courses in astrology. It means nothing in being a real science - however, nanotech is an area to be explored.
You seem to imply that the existence of the capability to continue to build smaller equates with nanobots capable of repairing severely damaged tissue - we don't know this yet, however I would have to say the probability is infinitesimally small. [pun intended!]
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 22:34:17 [Permalink]
|
I apologize, though technically I was not calling anyone stupid....only a statement that was made.
I do not belive you can receive a degree in astrology from Cal Tech!! It is howerver possible to get a PhD in nanotech.
|
|
|
|
theweirdirishman
New Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 19:29:55 [Permalink]
|
I dont think that cryo-freezing would work well. the testing is slim and would most likely involve fatalities. Now i'm playing the Devil's advocate cuz i think that advances in cryo-tech should be made; however, the physical variances and strains on the body would be unknown and possibly fatal. Second of all, IF a person was revived, the emotional and mental coping would be difficult-this person might have been frozen for years, everything they know has changed, thus raising possible theological problems.
-theweirdirishman
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2001 : 23:50:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I do not belive you can receive a degree in astrology from Cal Tech!! It is howerver possible to get a PhD in nanotech.
Apparently you've missed the point. The point is that no one yet knows the limitations or boundaries of nanotech. You're preaching that it is the be all and cure all for everything because it can repair tissue damage from cryonic suspension. However, I have a mother who has Multiple Sclerosis. This is damage to the mycelin sheath of the nervous system. IOW the messages don't get from the nerve ending to the brain to the muscles that need to be controlled to do certain functions. If I had a dime for everytime that I've been told that something will do more than is currently understood as possible...
I hold out a lot of hope for stem cell research - I don't for use of nanotech in the manner in which Drexler promotes (your Zyvex link tells me you should at least have heard of the man - your selling his line). Granted his grandiose promises have gotten him the funding to do research - great. But, your promoting the possibility that it is a cure all - its not. There are limitations at the quantum level, learn what they are and learn what nanotech is capable of (it may be some great things) but don't sell it for what it may never be.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 21:37:52 [Permalink]
|
Are you telling me that Drexler CAN'T be right. Why not..... because it sounds too good to be possible? I'm not saying that he is right, only that it is possible. So far there have been no arguments (including dragging in Quantum Mechanics, which 99.99% of the population cannot even comprehend), which have shown Drexler's theories to be unsound. Not one. Now I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, or even within my lifetime......only that it breaks no known laws of physics..... therefore it is possible..... therefore it will eventually happen, unless we destroy ourselves first. I'm sorry to hear about your mother's condition and I sympathize with your (and her) position. You don't (can't really afford too) want to get your hopes up. My position is this: As long as we don't destroy ourselves in the interim, then Drexler's "nanites" will eventually exist. Maybe not to the extent he envisions, but certainly enough to repair and revive cryonically frozen patients. As I've argued before on this subject I don't see the downside to at least trying cryonics, unless the economics of it pose a problem. If you don't sign up you will die. If you do sign up you might, just might, live a very long time. BTW if you would like to argue the proposed difficulties quantum mechanics introduces in further detail I would be happy to
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2001 : 23:52:43 [Permalink]
|
No arguments? I would then suggest you pick up the September issue of Scientific American. The cover:
Nanotech: The Science of the Small Gets Down to Business
Also:
Eric Drexler on Nanorobots
and
Richard Smalley on Why They Won't Work
There exists a problem with the Drexler's concept that any chem student can describe to you. Apparently Drexler has missed this point. When you've done more research on the subject then we can intelligibly discuss the issue. You are selling a smoke screen.
RANT:
Oh, and I really have problems with individuals who attempt to imply that subjects are beyond the comprehension of most individuals. It's this attempt at belittling the individual that results in poor grades in our school systems. We expect so little now of students because the subject is just too damn hard. Nothing is too difficult if one applies themself to grasping the basic concepts.
End Rant.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2002 : 22:16:55 [Permalink]
|
Well, yeah, given enough time and advances, they may yet be able to revive one of these cryonic subjects. Would bet, though, it won't be the result of any one 'silver bullet,' like nanotech. We're still left with why should we? The wealthy would certainly pay for more life, someone with a special ability might be worth the effort, but we have an ever increasing population as it is. Do we want to also extend normal life spans, too?
Don't tink so... 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
