Transterrestrial Musings

« Talking Past Each Other | Main | Harshing Gould's Final Buzz »

Corpsickles

I've been remiss in not covering the Ted Williams cryonics situation, because it's a subject in which I have a deep interest and more knowledge than most, including, I suspect, most bloggers. I'll try to stay on top of it better when I get back to California next week, but in the meantime, I just wanted to comment on this latest story from the National Post's sports section. Now the daughter is pleading with President Bush and former Senator Glenn to intercede on her behalf (though what the legal basis would be for them to do so is unclear to me).

For those few who have been on another planet this past week, baseball legend Ted Williams died a few days ago. Apparently either he or his son had made arrangements for him to be cryonically suspended--that is, his body has been frozen in the hopes that some future technology advances will be able to cure what ailed him, and to undo the even more severe damage caused by the cryonics process itself, allowing him to once again stride the earth, and smell the roses, and maybe even once again hit balls out of the park.

The son claims that this was Mr. Williams wish. His half sister, Ted Williams' daughter, claims that it wasn't at all his desire--that he wanted to be cremated and have the ashes scattered over the Florida Keys. Mr. Williams himself is unable to weigh in on the matter, being many degrees below room temperature and, legally at least, dead.

As is usually the case in such stories, the reporting has been appalling, confusing, and confused. As always, many refuse to use the term "cryonics," instead using the incorrect term "cryogenics," which is simply the scientific and engineering field of low-temperature phenomena. And the back story is missing in action in most cases, so I'll try to fill the gap a little here.

Cryonics is often, and mistakenly, lumped in with UFOlogy, ESP and other pseudoscience, but it actually has a very sound scientific and philosophical conceptual basis.

Most people think of death as an objective, unambiguous, and verifiable condition. But in fact, it's a legal fiction, and its declaration is simply function based and arbitrary. It's also based on the knowledge level and location of the personnel making the declaration.

For instance, a hundred years ago, a simple cessation of breathing (perhaps after drowning) would have been sufficient to declare death, though today such people are often resuscitated through simple CPR, and go on to live many more years. More recently, the lack of heart function was sufficient, though we now routinely stop hearts for cardiac surgery. The current medical standard (in most jurisdictions, which indicates again that it's a legal standard, and not an objective scientific one) is a flat line on an electroencephalogram (EEG), indicating no brain function. But there's no reason to believe that this is any ultimate indicator either--it may be possible in the future to revive people who have gone flat line (and in fact, this may already be the case now--I haven't done a recent literature search).

For these reasons, cryonicists don't accept a function-based definition of death. Instead, they propose something called information death. This is defined as the point at which, no matter what the level of conceivable future technological capability, it is no longer possible to repair the body to the point that it can be revived, with original memories and personality. Even this definition represents a continuum, rather than a binary condition, because most of us walking around now have lost or altered some of their earlier memories. But it's a much more promising, and valid, definition for the purposes of offering a chance at future revival.

As an example of the difference between structural damage and information death, consider that a book that has been cut up into pieces, or even shredded, could be reconstructed by a patient and talented puzzle solver, and still have the same information value as the original. But a book that has been burned, and had its ashes scattered, is irretrievable by any technology short of time travel.

All of this discussion, of course, presumes a materialist perspective--that the living body, including personality and consciousness, is the emergent property of the machinery that composes it. If one believes in an evanescent immaterial "soul," without which the body, even if living, is a zombie of some kind, then it doesn't work, but there's no scientific reason to believe this to be the case, so from at least a scientific perspective, cryonics should work, in theory.

So from this viewpoint, if Mr. Williams was adequately preserved upon his legal declaration of death, he is not in fact information dead, but is rather still alive. And thus his son is saving his life (putting him in an ambulance to the future, so to speak) whereas the daughter is trying, in her ignorance, to kill him. That's because one can't be more dead from an information standpoint than to burn the remains, converting them to illegible carbon molecules and scattering them.

That's what makes this quote from the article above interesting:

Ferrell said she and her husband, Mark, had known for a year about John Henry Williams' desire to have their father's body sent to the cryonics lab after he died.
"It is unfortunate that I have been put into a corner to fight for what is right and for my father's final wishes," she said in the letter. "I too am on a final mission to save 'Ted Williams."'

Of course, from a cryonicist's point of view, what she is doing is exactly the opposite of "saving" her father, by any rational definition of that word. She is, in fact, attempting to ensure that it will be impossible to save him. I suspect that she is doing this out of some version of Leon Kass' "yuck" criterion for moral probity. She's uncomfortable with the thought of her father's body being frozen, perhaps for religious reasons, or perhaps simply because it's unconventional. She probably doesn't believe that he will ever be revivable, or perhaps she doesn't believe that he should be revived even if it's possible, again, for irrational emotional reasons.

Now, there's nothing wrong with doing things for irrational emotional reasons per se, but a man's potential life is at issue here. If it were my decision, I'd have everyone suspended, because the cost of doing so isn't that much more than standard methods of interment (particularly if it were a common practice), and I grieve the loss of sources of consciousness to the universe under all circumstances, unless they are malevolent.

But the ultimate arbiter should be the wishes of Mr. Williams. And it's very difficult to tell what that was from the reportage to date.

Normally, Alcor (the cryonics organization to whom he has at least temporarily been entrusted) likes to avoid these kinds of disputes, for obvious reasons. It's bad business, and bad publicity, to have to thaw and destroy a patient that they've accepted. They encourage prospective customers to get permission from their families, if possible, and when it's not, or even when it has been gained, to make their wishes very clear, in a lucid and compelling manner, in writing and video.

If Mr. Williams signed up for the procedure himself, and can be shown to be of sound mind when he did so, and not coerced by his son, then the daughter will be out of luck--she won't be able to kill her father under the mistaken guise of "saving" him.

If he didn't sign up himself, but was signed up by his son, then it may be more problematic. In the absence of any clear indication of Mr. Williams' wishes, it will simply become "he said, she said," in which he will claim that Mr. Williams did want to attempt to extend his life into the future, and she will claim that he wanted his ashes dissipated over the Keys.

It wouldn't surprise me in either case that they are simply expressing their own wishes for their father, rather than attempting to follow out his own. I can easily imagine that the daughter's feelings are sufficiently strong as to lie about his desires, so finding corraborating witnesses on both sides will be critical. Similarly, if the son really was talking about selling Ted Williams DNA for cloning or other purposes, it will damage his case in the public mind, and make Alcor unhappy, because that isn't the business that they're in. They don't want to preserve DNA--they want to preserve persons. Of course, if she's lying about Mr. Williams's wishes, she could be lying about this as well, to discredit her brother and bolster her own case.

It will be an interesting legal situation, but it's not (at least yet) about the theoretical validity, practical effectivity, or ethics of cryonics--it's really just a simple probate case.

But my concern will be if President Bush or Senator Glenn actually do attempt to do something to help her. If that means making cryonics illegal, that will be both scary (if it succeeds) and interesting. I'm afraid that the Yuck Factor will once again come into play, and that the rational discussion on the subject will be minimal. British Columbia already has a law on the books outlawing this form of human preservation, and I hope that the same doesn't come to pass anywhere in the US, let alone in the entire country. When it becomes illegal to freeze people, or to extend their lives, then only outlaws will be frozen.

The notion that any Supreme Court would find such a law constitutional is disturbing, for what can be a more basic human right, for someone who has committed no crime other than to be born, than to live?

[Update shortly after posting]

I see that Jay Manifold has already found, and responded to, a Christian argument (and an utterly inadequate one, even from a Christian perspective, in his and my view) against cryopreservation. And like many opponents of cloning, the concern is not that it won't work, but it will.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2002 09:45 AM

Comments

One is reminded of a Robert Frost poem:

Some say Ted will end in fire, some say in ice.

Apologies all around.

Posted by Ken Summers at July 12, 2002 02:06 PM

Forgive my ignorance, but my impression was that they still have not solved the problem of cellular damage occuring from the expansion of ice in the first couple of degrees of freezing. As I'm sure you know, if you put a closed container filled with water in the freezer, it will burst when the water freezes and expands. Water is the only substance known that displays this behaviour (it's why ice floats in water). My impression was that they were looking at the few species of life that can survive being frozen because they have a form of anti-freeze in their blood in order to solve this problem. My understanding is that he would be information dead since every cell in his body has burst because every cell is like that closed container of water. Where am I wrong in this? Thanks.

Posted by Steve Mitterer at July 12, 2002 03:33 PM

I believe I read somewhere that Ted's Will stated he was to be cremated, tho this could have come from the daughter. Also, the daughter was estranged, while the moneygrubbing son was apparently on good terms with his father while living off the proceeds of memorabilia signings. Finally I thought I read where the cryonics outfit agreed to perform the procedure gratis for the publicity. Looks like theyll get their wish.

Posted by Lloyd at July 12, 2002 03:54 PM

Steve:
I don't know if they have solved the problem of cell rupture. Extremely quick freeze might work, I don't know. But it's also a problem on the thawing end, and not just for cells. Enzymes are often very sensitive to freeze/thaw, as are other large biochemicals.

Rand:
A more fundamental problem would be if we are (as I suspect, without solid evidence) more than just the sum of parts. Life (at least bacterial and larger life) is not just a collection of chemicals; it is organization and dynamic interaction. Perhaps the organization can remain intact (dubious, since some degradation and randomization occurs even at liquid nitrogen tempertures), but the dynamic interactions almost certainly not. And even if we could reanimate a person, I doubt it will be the same person unless memories really are hard-wired "things" and not electrical or something similar (like computer memory - would we be rebooting a new person?).

Posted by Ken Summers at July 12, 2002 04:21 PM

To Steve Mitterer, the cell problem isn't so much bursting as dessication, but it is definitely a problem. The question is whether it results in damage that makes the cell totally unrepairable. While it may not be obvious to us how to repair such a cellular structural insult, it would be of the greatest hubris on our part to therefore assume that no one in the future will be able to do so (and this argument applies to almost all injuries that result from the cryonics process). Just because someone in the seventeenth century couldn't imagine how one could transplant a human heart had no relevance to our ability to do so three centuries later.

To Ken Summers--what constitutes life, and consciousness, ultimately remains a mystery.

Are you simply saying that they are a dynamic process? If so, then why can't they be restarted as a computer can be rebooted?

But I think that even if we can be fairly certain that if maintaining cellular and synaptic structure is not sufficient, it's certainly necessary. So until we know for certain that it's insufficient (and for now, such a position would seem to me to be non-materialistic and non-scientific), the prudent course would be to preserve that which we know is required to even have a chance. Cryonicists don't offer guarantees--they just offer an alternative to the certainty of death (whatever that means to your religious tenets).

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2002 07:13 PM

"Are you simply saying that they are a dynamic process? If so, then why can't they be restarted as a computer can be rebooted?"

Not exactly what I am saying. I mean that it is the structure and organization, plus the dynamic interactions among the parts. It is certainly conceivable that they could be rebooted like a computer (assuming all constituents can be retained, including the unstable components), but it would be (likely) a different person, unless all memories are hardwired into the structure of the brain. Any memory that exists as some kind of (for lack of a better term) "dynamic entity" would be lost, just as all memory not recorded to disk is lost when a computer reboots. I am also assuming, of course, that a person with a different (or no) set of memories is a different person.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to make an argument against cryonics, just expressing strong doubt about the likelihood of success (particularly the subjects frozen without bodies; I would actually love to be able to tell one of these folks "quit while you're a head").

Posted by Ken Summers at July 12, 2002 08:08 PM

To the degree that we understand memory at all, it seems to be structural, in the synaptic connections. I suspect that if it were as dynamic as you postulate, that the extreme temperature lowering in people who fall into icy water, or under open-heart surgery, would zap them much more than seems to be the case.

But even if the chances are small, they beat zero, which is the prospect for the alternative.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2002 08:12 PM

This discussion about cryonics raises a lot of interesting questions, mostly related to the nature of consciousness (since, after all, it's the person's "self'" all this liquid nitrogen is aimed at preserving).

Regarding Ken Summers' question as to whether consciousness (or the "self") is at least in part a dynamic process, I offer these few data points.

There is (as I have recently discovered due to a personal experience with one of my elders) a degenerative brain disease called frontotemporal dementia, which affects primarily the social interations and personality of the patient, and which produces many interesting behavioral features. Patients can progressively lose their ability to speak, though their memory remains largely intact (unlike Alzheimer's). They lose their social inhibitions, and along with that, the insight to realize what they're doing is strange or inappropriate (which is apparently a related function). They can come to resemble autistic people (think "Rain Man"), even to the extent of "acquiring" visuospatial skills that they "lacked" before (such as a savant-like ability to paint or draw). Their tastes in food and music may change, usually to a preference for sweets and popular music. They can show what psychiatrists call "perseverative" behavior, doing the same thing over an over when normal minds would give up, and "concrete thinking" (my elder, who lived alone, spent several hours[!] trying to button a jacket because that was the next required step in preparation for leaving the house so they could go get lunch). Like the autistic, their emotional responses become blunted, and they lose empathy with others, including what's called "theory of mind," which is that internal model in your brain which is used to predict the behavior and emotions of others. For all practical purposes, these patients lose their "self" while still alive, in a manner distinct from Alzheimer's patients, because they lose their personality rather than their memory.
[see http://www.pdsg.org.uk/ for more information]

There's a famous 19th-Century case in neurology of a man called Phineas Gage, who suffered a traumatic frontal lobe injury and lost his previous personality.
[see http://www.neurosurgery.org/cybermuseum/pre20th/crowbar/crowbar.html for details]

And lastly, though you can think what you will of her near-death experience, there is at least some evidence that consciousness can be "re-booted" (which suggests that it is either structurally stored in the brain, and can be revived from a flatline EEG, or is able, as her experience suggests, to persist in the absence of brain activity, as a soul). [see http://www.near-death.com/reynolds.html for details]

If there are any other patients who've successfully undergone the same type of surgery (heart stopped, blood drained, drug-induced flatline EEG) I'd be interested to know about it, whether or not they had a similar perception.

Posted by Ken Barnes at July 13, 2002 05:57 AM

To think that doing something, *anything* is "impossible" after what we've seen ourselves do, well that's just folly.

Just look at the folks that are 100 years old, and are dying now lived through... They basically went from steam engines to the moon in the time it took them to retire.

To say that we won't be able to somehow 'reanimate' a folk-cicle is the same rehetoric that said we couldn't break the sound barrier.

My guess though is that this won't be such a priority since overpopulation will have us looking for ways to have less of us, and not reanimating those of us who have already lived.

...Which brings me back to my question: Where the hell is my nuclear-powered car?

Posted by DocZeN at July 13, 2002 11:41 AM

In response to Ken's post about bursting cells, the current state-of-the-art in cryonics now is called "vitrification", a process where a higher level of cryo-protectant (an anti-freeze, if you will) is used and the body, or head is rapidly cooled. This results in the tissue going into a glass-like state and doesn't give ice a chance to form. There is essentially no damage to the cells using this process - definitely one of the major advances in cryonics.

On the thawing end, I don't expect damage as the body won't be thawed out and then put back together; most, if not all, of the repairs will be done in a cold state. At that point, it's just like saving a hypothermia victim.

Posted by Tolen May at July 14, 2002 04:51 AM

Regarding DocZen's comment on overpopulation:

Long term predictions of overpopulation and the "carrying capacity" of Earth are often too pessimistic (Paul Erhlich's "Population Bomb" being the preeminent example). With graying populations in the industrialized world (leading to the collapse of social insurance schemes which depend on assumptions of growth in the population of taxpaying workers), rising affluence in historically overpopulated industrializing countries like China and India, and the tragic devastation of AIDS on the population of many African nations, such dire predictions should be viewed with more skepticism.

A recent study published in Nature predicts that global population growth will peak before the end of the 21st Century: http://www.nature.com/nature/fow/010802.html

If, as seems likely at some point in this century, technological developments make commercial development of near-Earth space economically feasible, the increase in available resources and the opening of the New Frontier will provide an outlet for some of humanity's excess.

Even if we're all still stuck on Earth, the assumed nanotechnological breakthrough that would make possible reviving the presently tiny number of cryonically suspended individuals is truly of negligable cost for a civilization with widespread nanotech abundance.

Posted by Ken Barnes at July 14, 2002 05:37 AM

Cryonics really disturbs people on a level that is so deep that it is hard to reveal. It is easy to indulge in our "yuck factor" explanations of why we are uncomfortable: it's not natural, it's weird, only crazy rich people sign up for that. I think that the real reason that the majority cannot deal with cryonics, even the intelligent, scientifically oriented majority, is that it is an out, a chance at immortality having nothing to do with greatness, an easy answer to fear of death. We are jealous that some people will live forever because they were frozen, and that they only had to have money to achieve it. It goes against the deeply-ingrained puritan work ethic and morality that is below the surface of even the most objective American. On level as deep and subconscious as speaking English, we believe in the eventuality of death. Even those of us with no religious affiliation were raised in a society permeated with Judeo-Christian views of good and evil, and that immortality is reserved for God and his Son, and maybe some other really, really important people, but that the desire for eternal life in the ordinary person is sinful and misguided; the only way to have eternal life is to die on earth. We hate seeing someone get something for nothing, something we don't think they deserve--we were bathed in that belief as babies and fed full on it as children. As adults we are bound by our work ethic--getting something for nothing is wrong, we are working, doing as we should, so should they--and cannot feel comfortable with an easy way out of death. I would love to hide behind the scientific shortfalls of cryonics are the reason is bothers me, but in honesty I know it is that good old puritan founding father in my subconscious preaching that immortality should not be so easy, that there will be catch, and that even if he lives again he will be damned to all eternity, and that it isn't right because we've never done it before. My southern upbringing (though very liberal) is screaming "It's wrong not to die! Haven't you read your Bible?"

I know that few people take the time or have the inclination to delve into the depths of their minds and uncover their hidden motivations, but my investigation has made it possible to look at cryogenics objectively, and see it as interesting and thought provoking rather than scary and unnatural.

We just have to leave room in our lives for independent thought, and room to accept immortally frozen people can follow.

Posted by Amber Hoffman at July 14, 2002 03:02 PM

Amber Hoffman makes a good point about the religious dimension of cryonics, that it is essentially a rejection of the promise of immortality through God's grace. One fears perhaps for such a technology's effect on religious faith were it to be successful, perhaps subconsciously because it would imply a future populated with virtually immortal atheists --while the virtuous faithful, who've taken their chances with the grave, might possibly be mistaken.

For the moment, cryonics requires a different sort of faith, putting it on equal footing with metaphysical immortality. If and when the first Lazarus arises from cold storage, however, there'll likely be a lot more people who opt to postpone that meeting with their Maker.

By that time cryonics might be seen as just another medical procedure (a la Spielberg's "A.I."), used to place a terminally ill patient in stasis, pending a cure for their disease.

Posted by Ken Barnes at July 14, 2002 05:03 PM

Amber Hoffman wrote,

"Even those of us with no religious affiliation were raised in a society permeated with Judeo-Christian views of good and evil, and that immortality is reserved for God and his Son, and maybe some other really, really important people, but that the desire for eternal life in the ordinary person is sinful and misguided; the only way to have eternal life is to die on earth."

Uh, no. The idea that immortality is reserved for God and His Son strikes me as odd -- it resembles in no way what I ever was taught in several years of Catholic schooling. Since both God and Jesus are said to exist now in spiritual life, the immortality they have is no different from the non-corporeal immortality held out as hope for the rest of us.

Boy -- class warfare arguments pitting God against mortals. That's a new one.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at July 15, 2002 07:28 AM

I have a blog post about this that does address cryonics from a religious perspective (mine):

http://mcgehee.blogspot.com/2002_07_01_mcgehee_archive.html#78881850 if the archive links are working, or

http://mcgehee.blogspot.com/#78881850 if not.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at July 15, 2002 07:30 AM

Congratulations, Amber, for delving deep and deciding that your instinctive ick reaction to cryonics is jealousy for those who can afford it. I have to take exception though, to your use of the word 'we'. I wasn't raised to resent other folks having the easy life, instead my parents taught me to take a look at what they were doing that let them have it, and encouraged me to try and emulate it.

My resistance to the idea of cryonics is entirely personal, and has no relation to fears of overpopulation, or that I'll _never_ get rid of my inlaws (had I any) entirely. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to undergo cryonic preservation is welcome to it. I just won't be one of them, because absent other proof, I believe I DO have a soul, and I'm claustrophobic, and don't think that I'd be too keen on being trapped in one place, unable to wake up or change my condition, eternally at the mercy of others. Neither would I allow someone to lock me into a cell with the promise that when they'd made 10 million dollars on the stock market for me, they'd let me out and give it to me. If someone else wants to take that bet though, more power to them, and I hope they are eventually cured, revived, and allowed to live out their days as they choose.

Posted by Celeste at July 15, 2002 10:39 AM

Heinlein wrote a novel on this subject back in the 1950's (1960's?). "The Door Into Summer" introduced the term "Corpsickles" (I think).

The general public in the future resented the intrusion of the revived corpsickles into their world (time) and it was a very derogatory term.

Aside from being a really good sci-fi book (in my opinion) it covered some of the social issues that might be present if this idea ever worked.

What right do you or I have to inject ourselves into the future world of our children and/or grand (grand, grand, etc) children?

I have kind of the same feeling about all of the potential life-extending medical technology that we see becoming more available (or hyped) every day. How long is long enough?

If nobody ever died, pretty soon we'd be hip-deep in people.

Regards,

David

Posted by David at July 15, 2002 11:36 AM

If you don't have a right to decide how long you live, who does?

One of the reasons to open up new environmental niches off planet is to handle all the new consciousnesses that will be coming along after we've solved the problem of aging and death. It's a big universe out there.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2002 12:25 PM

It intrigues me that no one has yet mentioned the "Rip Van Winkle" phenomenon -- the culture shock, if you will, of waking up 10, 50, 100 or 500 years later in a society radically different from the one in which you originally lived.

Not that fantasy and horror fiction carry the same weight as sociological studies (though they can be as prescient as good science fiction), but it's instructive that in most vampire novels I've read, the author emphasizes how lonely his or her undead protagonist is. All the souls they knew in their original lives are long gone; and, barring a stake through the heart or decapitation, they are destined to lose every single person to whom they subsequently become close. They are also subject to a version of Cassandra's fate: they see history remaking itself over and over in the same shape, yet cannot convince the short-lived around them to take heed and avert disaster.

Of course, if cryonics becomes cheap, effective, and widespread, you won't be going into the future alone -- theoretically, you can always have your siblings, childhood friends, etc. with you. And it's conceivable (though dubious, given human nature) that one day the cryonically frozen will be venerated as their new societies' fonts of wisdom. But at least until that becomes feasible, it strikes me that there will be a booming business for "cryopsychiatrists" -- professionals trained to help the unfrozen fit into their bewildering new worlds.

Posted by Reginleif the Valkyrie at July 15, 2002 02:20 PM

Thanks to Rand Simberg for an excellent post on July 12 above. Obviously many questions were raised. I haven't seen any indication that anyone here is actually signed up. I do happen to be signed up with ALCOR and will try to answer any questions to the best of my ability, either privately or publicly.

I have just one comment for the moment.

I strongly agree with the statement above that we should not underestimate what future technologies will be able to do in terms of recovering cryonicists currently in stasis. Remember that advances are currently progressing at exponential rather than linear rates. (see www.kurzweilai.net) In all probability, by the time technology advances to the point where cryonics patients can be recovered, many other achievements will have already been made, most notably the cure for aging and sophisticated nanotechnology.

Posted by at July 15, 2002 07:26 PM

Well, answering questions may be difficult, since we don't know who you are, or how to reach you. :-)

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2002 08:02 PM

Sorry. Don't know why it didn't register. Let's try again.

Posted by Scott Badger at July 15, 2002 08:43 PM

I guess this casts an entirely different meaning on "my dad can lick your dad".

Posted by Fleming Aniss at July 16, 2002 06:27 PM

To believe BOTH that cryonics might work AND that it is desirable requires a view of the future which is mostly positive and based on the inevitability of continuing scientific and technical progress and perhaps even ethical progress. I strongly feel that if we look backward 1000 years and consider what has happened and then try to project our expectations forward an equivalent amount of time based on that historical experience, it should be fairly obvious that the enormous progress that has been made on all these fronts will continue on, perhaps at an accelerated pace. Regrettably, in my opinion, most people view the extended future not only as leading to overpopulation but also a constriction of resources and a general decline somehow abetted by science and technology. This utterly false conception is encouraged by most science fiction writing which colors the future in doomsday terms, often with scientists depicted as mad or malevolent. Millenialist thinking in Christianity does no better, imagining a future time of heavenly bliss ordained by God only after mankind has been obliterated in its present form. Golden ages are always in the past, starting with the Hesiod formulation of 500 BC or the Judeo-Christian conception of the Garden of Eden. These ideas persist and are even prevalent today, totally ignoring the historical and archeological record of what the dim past of humanity was really like.
I became seriously interested in cryonics in the mid 1960's after seeing Robert Ettinger on the Johnny Carson show and joined his small group because I happened to live in Michigan at the time. I had had a lot of scientific training and considered myself a pretty hard-nosed empiricist so I was and am acutely aware of how feeble the chances of ultimate resuscitation are with the methods of freezing then available. However, I also realized that the methods probably would improve over the years to the point where the whole concept would become scientifically plausible with reasonably good odds [not certainty] of ultimate revival. In many ways I have been disappointed in the progress that has been made to date, in terms of the numbers frozen, the numbers enthused by the idea and joining in support, and the amount of technical progress that has been made in creating a cold storage preparation process which minimizes the deleterious effects of freezing on tissue, well discussed in this chat. On the other hand, the progress which has been made in many related areas has been staggering since 1966. Cloning, stem cell research, micropreccessors, lap top computers, the internet, and nanotechnology were totally beyond the realm of thought of that era, yet each of these discoveries in its way increases the odds that something like cryonics will eventually work. Within the movement there is an accepted view that 'the first shall be last and the last first' meaning that those frozen in the earliest times with the most primitive technology will have the poorest chances of revival and will thus be revived only when the science has advanced to a much higher level, if indeed, that ever happens. However as more people accept the idea and contribute to the research and development on the freezing process, the more the odds improve. I believe we will eventually look back on these early freezees with respect and even reverence for their courage in bucking social disapproval [as John Henry is getting today from many quarters], and our moral code in the future will require us to keep these people preserved for as long as it takes because of what they did for us so long ago, even if that is essentially for ever.

Posted by Ronald G. Havelock at July 17, 2002 01:25 AM

Well, I am not exactly sure what this site is, since I stumbled upon this page from a cryonet link. But this is a very interesting discussion.

Tolen May, you seem almost blase about the possibility of any serious technical concerns.

"On the thawing end, I don't expect damage as the body won't be thawed out and then put back together; most, if not all, of the repairs will be done in a cold state. At that point, it's just like saving a hypothermia victim."

For non-vitrified patients, like those at Cryonics Institute and many at Alcor, I don't think that is possible. Any water will be in the frozen state, and will take up a larger volume than when thawed. cells can NEVER be the same at low temperatures as at normal ones. Not as long as they contain water, minerals and the other elements necessary to the chemistry of life. There are certain molecules you could position, but that's about it. If you are repairing a frozen but non-vitrified cell, obviously it can't be repaired to its normal state until above freezing: When frozen, what fluid volume would you put inside it, and what would happen to that fluid when you thawed it?

If you are repairing a vitrified cell, you could repair the membrane and all the cellular components, but you can't detox it of the anti-freeze until you warm it, without encountering the same problems as above. But I do see a better line of reasoning here: We can repair vitrified cells while frozen, then warm the body up, detox it, then reanimate it. I wouldn't say its impossible, but its nothing to poo-poo, either. Has Alcor produced any vitrification test result using whole (animal) brains? Any microscopic analysis of cell damage? Maybe the chemicals penetrate better now, but the last I read you couldn't meaningfully vitrify more than a thin section of cells at a time. I'd like to see how well their compound is penetrating and what kind of damage shows up on a vitrified and thawed brain. Also, the last I read vitrified patients would still be stored at LN2 temperature, rather than near the glass transition temperature, so you will still get major fracturing of the brain, and quite possibly separation into several lobes. At least the great majority of individual cells would be much better off, but you would get major ripping and tearing along the "fault lines." I don't think these problems can't one day be overcome, but I also don't buy the 'PR' Alcor initially posted on the website for months and months, "Vitrification Arrives"!, as if this was suddenly going to be a walk in the park.

I'm not sure of the ultimate feasibility of the self-replicating nanobots, of course. Time will tell there. Eric Drexler is an unabashed enthusiast, while chemistry nobel laureate Stuart Smalley seems just as convinced of their ultimate unfeasibility. The only available examples in nature--biological nanobots--can only operate at normal temperatures and in aqueous environments, so a mechanical counterpart would seem imperative. I guess i need to do a search when time permits, and see if there are counter-arguments to Smalley's contention (Scientific American, Sept. 2001) that fundamental aspects of chemistry at the micro-level will make nano-manipulations impossible.

Posted by Lloyd at July 18, 2002 03:10 PM

Tolen May,

If I accused you of being too blase' about difficulties, then perhaps I could peg myself as having been too dire. I just visited the revamped Alcor website, and was reminded of their somewhat technical analysis, a "Realistic Repair scenario." At least they have theorized about the matter in great detail. It is quite involved, and I will have to study it more deeply later. But they do provide a scenario for repair of various components at various temperatures. The Intro summary was as follows:

"A scenario is developed which is based on a) replacing brain ice with repair networks below Tg, b) carrying out gross structural repairs at temperatures in the range of about -100 to -30 degrees C, and c) carrying out most intracellular repairs at more elevated temperatures, relying in part on ordinary biological self-assembly and self-repair for carrying out much of the work required."

Interesting that they have only published a repair scenario for "conventionally frozen" tissue", not vitrified tissues.

Posted by Lloyd at July 18, 2002 04:35 PM

TO THE RELIGIOUS WHO OPPOSE CRYOSTASIS, DON'T WORRY ABOUT MY SOUL...I'LL PLACE MY FAITH IN SCIENCE.

LIVE FOREVER OR DIE TRYING!!!

Posted by WILLIAM GUNN at July 19, 2002 11:49 AM

To William Gunn, two words:

"Caps Lock."

Posted by Kevin McGehee at July 20, 2002 07:23 AM

Concern over freezing someone to "preserve life" is just a lot of worry over male bovine residue.

Posted by Dave at July 22, 2002 09:12 AM

While I'm sure there are many people who oppose cryostasis on religious or utilitarian grounds, I suspect the main reason someone would oppose the freezing of her own father is the denial of closure. If your father's dead and buried, it's done, you go through the five stages of loss, and get on with your life. If he disappears one day, and you never know what happened to him, it's a nightmare that never ends. You see this with parents of long missing children - they may be relieved when the body is found, because it means the situation is over. It seems like cryogenic storage of a "dead" relative would affect some people the same way. While this is certainly an "irrational emotional reason" to oppose the process, for some people it's probably a pretty strong reason, where their own relatives are concerned. Ironically, it's likely that the more they cared about the person, the more strongly they would oppose preservation.

Posted by Tristan Bukowski at August 20, 2003 12:34 AM

Post a comment