Kicking a bunch of tired old straw men down the street, Chad Orzel puts in his two cents on the cryonics debate. It would be refreshing for the opponents to come up with some new (and effective) arguments, but after many years of this, I see little hope at this point.
Two main responses. First, I know of no cryonicist that holds out much hope for Alzheimer’s patients. And most cryonicists would agree that patients suspended under the rather primitive regimens of the last two or three decades have little chance, because of major cracking in the brain. But the argument is not about people whose brains have already been destroyed, or who were suspended in the past, so much as what we should do with our present level of knowledge, for people whose personalities remain intact at the time of declaration of death.
As for why the people of the future would reanimate those of the past, I would like to believe it’s because they will retain their humanity. I expect the future to be wealthy enough to do so, and for there to be plenty of room for them, either on planet or off. If that’s not the case, I’m not sure I’d particularly want to come back anyway. Mr. Orzel thinks that’s an unlikely future.
Fine, in his pessimism, let him rot–I won’t stop him. I find it strange that people who apparently so little cherish their own lives would also attempt to deprive others of theirs, however.
This is, at least, a purer version of Pascal’s Wager than the original. There’s no “many gods” counter-argument that I can see– the choice is really a binary one between oblivion and a life in the future, with no other options. If the four wagers happen to fall out in your favor, then you win big; if not, well, you’re dead anyway. But it’s important to recognize cryonics (at least in its present form) for the gamble that it is.
He says that as though they (and I) don’t. I know few cryonicists who don’t recognize it as a gamble. I don’t like the odds either, nor do they. All that can be said in its favor is that they beat the odds on the alternative. And for me, that’s enough.
[Update at 8:00 PM PDT]
Mr. Orzel responded to this post, and I thought it worthwhile to move it into the post body itself, not because it was in any way persuasive, but because (a) it betrays the mindset of those who are intellectually lazy and expect others to do their homework for them, and (b) it shows what those who are trying to preserve their lives are up against.
This doesn’t really address my actual point, which was to make an analogy between the damage due to something like Alzheimer’s and the damage due to freezing, which you elsewhere refer to as “tremendous,” and “a much worse structural insult than the result of almost any known disease.” If there’s no hope for Alzheimer’s patients, even with magical future technology, than I have a hard time seeing how there’s any hope for frozen people, who have suffered a “much worse structural insult.”
Well, your point is pointless, since I hedged with the word “almost.” Obviously, since the criterion is information death, Alzheimer’s is the exception to the rule. And as evidence that cryonicists recognize the disaster that is brain diseases, Tom Donaldson fought (and lost, though fortunately, his disease is in remission) a legal battle to have himself suspended prior to the destruction of his brain via brain tumor. This is a fact with which anyone interested could have become acquainted via a Google search.
And my comment was about damage to all the cells in the body, not specifically with regard to brain damage. The damage done by Alzheimer’s is different in kind to the damage caused by ischemia and freezing. In fact, I consider people in advanced stages of Alzheimer’s to be walking dead, by the standards of information death. If I were going to be suspended, I’d like to be able to do so before such degenerative brain diseases can take their full toll (or even much of it, which was what Thomas Donaldson was fighting for, and lost).
Also, is what’s done “with our present level of knowledge” really so different than what was done with people who were “suspended in the past?” The people, that is, who were frozen in the past two or three decades, who you give “little chance.” I can’t claim to be a devoted follower of the field, but I don’t get the impression that there’s been a real, qualitative change in our understanding of the process. “The past” is now, and the point is what to do about those cases, or rather, what degree of faith one should have in a technology that’s at the flint axe level, relatively speaking.
We know that past suspensions are problematic based on brain sections of animals that have been preserved based on the same techniques. The knowledge gained from this has been applied to current preservation methods. Is it good enough? Who the hell knows? All we know is that the alternative is guaranteed oblivion, absent the promises of various religions.
I also have a difficult time squaring this new “yes, but that’s not the point” argument with your earlier comments, in Bruce’s comments section, that “The assumption is that some future technology will be able to deal with the damage of crude suspensions, but because the earliest will be the most damaged, it’s likely that it will be “first in, last out,” because people suspended later, with more sophisticated techniques, will be easier to repair.” That seems to imply a belief that future technology will enable the rescue of even the most crudely frozen people, who you’re now saying have “little chance.”
Well, I don’t understand your problem, unless in your confusion, you somehow misread my statement to mean that “last” was of finite duration. Of course, the reality may be “first in, never out,” and cryonicists recognize this, despite your continual attempts to set up a straw man of a guarantee. There is no claim that everyone who has been suspended, or will be, will be revived. The only minimal and defensible claim is that those who have not, will not be.
If these are “old straw men,” it should be easy enough to re-fire the old torches you used to burn them, or at least provide a pointer to someone who does actually address the arguments, rather than simply blowing them off as beneath contempt.
Easy perhaps, but it takes time, which is the ultimate currency for all of us, particularly those of us who make no attempt to extend life. There’s an abundance of material on this subject on the net. You want a pointer? You’re too lazy to just Google “cryonics”? Fine. Try cryonet.org.
As for your attempt to deem me a would-be murderer, writing:
Fine, in his pessimism, let him rot–I won’t stop him. I find it strange that people who apparently so little cherish their own lives would also attempt to deprive others of theirs, however.
You’ve gone wide of the mark. If someone wants to shell out good money to swim in a vat of liquid nitrogen for all eternity, I’m in no hurry to stop them. If you want to make Pascal’s Wager, that’s your business and none of mine.
Really? Then what is your purpose in (in ignorance, since you’re unwilling to do any research on it yourself) denigrating the concept, if not to dissuade others from believing in it, and acting on that belief? What’s in it, or against it, for you?
I’m attempting to raise serious questions here, about issues that are ill-served by grand but hazy claims about the glories of future technology (let alone the fatuous “holocaust” rhetoric you trotted out briefly a little while back). There are interesting questions here, about cognition, and identity, and what possibilities the future actually holds, and there’s interesting science to be done, and discussed. If I’m ill-informed, well, inform me, and the no doubt teeming masses of other readers who are similarly misinformed. Flip insults and curt dismissals do nothing to advance your cause.
Do you really believe that you’re the only one to be insulted here? Do you really believe that the issues that you’ve raised have somehow been ignored and not discussed in the almost-forty years that this concept has been around? Do you really believe that your implicit assumption that cryonicists are idiots who have never considered the issues that you raised would not be taken as an insult to their own intelligence?
Sorry, but trite recitations of oft-refuted arguments do nothing for your cause, whatever it is.