[Hydromonke (OP)]

Cryonics (from Greek: κρύος kryos meaning 'cold') is the low-temperature freezing (usually at −196 °C or −320.8 °F or 77.1 K) and storage of a human corpse or severed head, with the speculative hope that resurrection may be possible in the future. Is this procedure possible and is there any reason to believe that it will be possible to revive people who were cryopreserved ?

[alancalverd]

Conceivably, but who would want to wake up as a museum curiosity?

[evan_au]

Freezing eggs and sperm is a proven technology. But it's relatively easy to freeze a small volume of cells, and thaw them out again. These can be snap-frozen before large ice crystals can grow and fracture cells.

For larger organs or a whole body, the temperature in the center of the organ drops more slowly, and ice crystals are likely to rupture cells during freezing and/or thawing. So what you get is mush for brains.

Animals which regularly survive being frozen in  ponds over winter have genetic switches which produce antifreeze in all their cells, preventing growth of large ice crystals.

[charles1948]

Conceivably, but who would want to wake up as a museum curiosity?

But even if you woke up as a "museum curiosity" ,wouldn't it be so interesting to see what happens in the Future? Especially in Science.  Like whether the Big Bang theory gets replaced by a new Steady State theory.  Or whether Dark Matter is proved to exist, or not.

Or whether Mathematics developes to predict, precisely, which numbers can be Prime or not Prime. Or whether a method of a Trisecting any given Angle, using only straight-edge and compasses, is finally discovered.

Thirty years ago, I might have added, whether Fermat's Last Theorem  is finally proved.  This eventually happened -supposedly,  during my lifetime.  But our lifetimes are so pitifully short. Don't you wish for a way extend them?

It could be through cryogenics, as Hydromonke's OP suggests. More likely through genetic engineering of our DNA.

But isn't the true goal of Science - the conquest of human death.  Whether by cryogenic freezing and subsequent thawing and revival, or any other means.

 

[alancalverd]

But isn't the true goal of Science - the conquest of human death.

No. If nobody dies, the world will gradually fill with old people until there is nothing to eat and nowhere to stand. There will be no distinction between people and cancer. Except that 1000-year-old cancer cells don't keep saying "In my day..." and boring the arse off the young.

Knowing that you are immortal means that you can procrastinate everything, so there will be no progress. Why should I bother to investigate dark matter, knowing that eventually someone else will find the answer and I'll be around to hear it?   

And you are presuming that the world will be a better place in a hundred or a thousand years. What evidence do you have? Scum like Trump and Isis are an ever-present threat to human dignity and intellect. Knowing that I only have a short time to fix things, I'll do my best to stop the rot,  but the best guess is a 50% chance that my great grandchildren will inhabit a corrupt and stinking theocracy or a world-wide civil or religious war, and I'd rather be dead.

The goal of intelligent and caring people should be to let everyone choose the time and mode of his death.

[charles1948]

But isn't the true goal of Science - the conquest of human death.

No. If nobody dies, the world will gradually fill with old people until there is nothing to eat and nowhere to stand. There will be no distinction between people and cancer. Except that 1000-year-old cancer cells don't keep saying "In my day..." and boring the arse off the young.

Knowing that you are immortal means that you can procrastinate everything, so there will be no progress. Why should I bother to investigate dark matter, knowing that eventually someone else will find the answer and I'll be around to hear it?   

And you are presuming that the world will be a better place in a hundred or a thousand years. What evidence do you have? Scum like Trump and Isis are an ever-present threat to human dignity and intellect. Knowing that I only have a short time to fix things, I'll do my best to stop the rot,  but the best guess is a 50% chance that my great grandchildren will inhabit a corrupt and stinking theocracy or a world-wide civil or religious war, and I'd rather be dead.

The goal of intelligent and caring people should be to let everyone choose the time and mode of his death.

Alan, aren't you saying all this, only because you think there is no prospect of a cure for death  being found, before you die.

I can understand that. None of us wants to wants to die.  But at the present time, we can't prevent it happening.

So we try to pretend that we don't mind it.  By saying falsehoods like, if I may quote you: The goal of intelligent and caring people should be let everyone choose the time and place of death

No. I don't buy that. The goal should be to get rid of death altogether.  Isn't that what we are always working towards. For example, in this current Covid-19 pandemic. Intelligent people have been working to develop a vaccine against the virus.  Why?  Because the virus can cause death.  What other reason is there?

 If we didn't mind death, if it was some kind of ultimately good and  desirable thing, as you seem to imply - why should we strive so hard to develop a vaccine against a virus which causes death?

Your protestations are nothing but defeatism.  What we need is a vaccine, or some other cure,  which will prevent all death and suffering.  And give us the chance to live as long as we want to.

That is the true goal of Science, isn't it?

[Halc]

But isn't the true goal of Science - the conquest of human death.

I can think of far better things for science to worry about. I can think of few worse things. I second Alan's sentiments about it.  Science arguably should worry more about preserving humanity instead of hastening its demise.

But even if you woke up as a "museum curiosity" ,wouldn't it be so interesting to see what happens in the Future?

I don't think the average specimen in a zoo gets a lot of rights, say to an internet connection. What possible motivation would any entity have in reviving a person not only frozen, but damaged to the point of death?  OK, we have laws preventing us from putting people's reanimated heads in jars in a carnival side show, but we can do it to these non-citizens we found in the deep freeze. No morals need apply.

So join a religion which believes that in the afterlife, all will be revealed. If something like that way in any way plausible, I'd want it fed to me slowly. Why learn all the answers at once? Eternity is boring enough without anything new to look forward to.

It could be through cryogenics

Cryonics.  The OP got that much right.

[evan_au]

whether a method of a Trisecting any given Angle, using only straight-edge and compasses, is finally discovered.

You don't have to wait for the future to find that one out - it was proved impossible in 1837.

My simplistic understanding of the problem is that an unmarked straightedge and compass can be used to solve quadratic equations (with terms in x²). However, the general problem of trisecting an angle requires solving a cubic equation (with terms in x³), which cannot be done with straightedge and compass in a way that would be acceptable to an ancient Greek geometer.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection

[alancalverd]

None of us wants to wants to die.

Most people are rightly afraid of the process of dying, because in a world run by superstitious parasites, you aren't allowed to assist a suicide, so the dying person has to suffer every kind of pain and indignity until they are transferred to something like  the "Liverpool Pathway", which is a euphemism for criminal negligence. 

But nobody need be afraid of being dead. It's the state of having no further problems.

So when we eventually remove superstition and incompetence and introduce rationality into the laws surrounding death, we will move one step closer to differentiating man from beast, by allowing man to choose how and when he dies, if necessary at the hand of a caring professional.

at the present time, we can't prevent it happening.

Look both ways before you cross the road, check your tyres and brakes, eat your greens, and everything else that Mum told you, will at least give you more time to live.

 

The goal should be to get rid of death altogether.

Not my goal. I enjoyed bringing children into the world and educating them, but if I don't die, where are their descendants going to live, and what are they going to eat? Or are you going to outlaw reproduction? 

Vaccines are developed to prevent disease, not death. In this respect the military have a far better understanding than  journalists and politicians: sublethal weapons impose an ongoing burden of casualties on the enemy, whereas corpses are merely a temporary impediment. 250,000 COVID deaths in the USA has simply increased the profits of undertakers and reduced the Republican vote a bit, but 15,000,000 people on sick leave has seriously damaged the economy without significantly improving the Senate or Supreme Court. 

[Hydromonke (OP)]

None of us wants to wants to die.

Most people are rightly afraid of the process of dying, because in a world run by superstitious parasites, you aren't allowed to assist a suicide, so the dying person has to suffer every kind of pain and indignity until they are transferred to something like  the "Liverpool Pathway", which is a euphemism for criminal negligence. 

But nobody need be afraid of being dead. It's the state of having no further problems.

So when we eventually remove superstition and incompetence and introduce rationality into the laws surrounding death, we will move one step closer to differentiating man from beast, by allowing man to choose how and when he dies, if necessary at the hand of a caring professional.

at the present time, we can't prevent it happening.

Look both ways before you cross the road, check your tyres and brakes, eat your greens, and everything else that Mum told you, will at least give you more time to live.

 

The goal should be to get rid of death altogether.

Not my goal. I enjoyed bringing children into the world and educating them, but if I don't die, where are their descendants going to live, and what are they going to eat? Or are you going to outlaw reproduction? 

Vaccines are developed to prevent disease, not death. In this respect the military have a far better understanding than  journalists and politicians: sublethal weapons impose an ongoing burden of casualties on the enemy, whereas corpses are merely a temporary impediment. 250,000 COVID deaths in the USA has simply increased the profits of undertakers and reduced the Republican vote a bit, but 15,000,000 people on sick leave has seriously damaged the economy without significantly improving the Senate or Supreme Court.

Doesn't this argument assume that everyone would want the same thing ? And as you said "chose how and what time they want to die" I don't think overcoming ageing means overcoming death. I think biological immortality is worth it and can give many people who didn't have a good life the option to live further

[syhprum]

I think it likely that there would be more covid-19 related deaths among democrat voters than among republican

[alancalverd]

That would be surprising. There are roughly equal numbers of members of both parties, but the absence of masks and social distancing is only evident in Republican rallies. The current fashion for getting a dose at the White House seems to be an honor conferred only on Republicans. PUS denied federal funding to Democrat mayors and states and encouraged his knuckledraggers to intimidate Democrat officials who encouraged or insisted on preventive measures in public places.

Your reasoning would make interesting reading.

[alancalverd]

Doesn't this argument assume that everyone would want the same thing ? And as you said "chose how and what time they want to die" I don't think overcoming ageing means overcoming death. I think biological immortality is worth it and can give many people who didn't have a good life the option to live further

No. I haven't forced anyone to do anything, nor prevented anyone from seeking eternal life or resurrection if they so desire. I've just pointed out that it would, on balance, be a Bad Thing.

give many people who didn't have a good life the option to live further

where there is presumably an even worse chance of enjoying it, since they would be resurrected with no family, friends, wealth or possessions, and whatever knowledge skills and strength they might have possessed at the point of death would now be irrelevant.