Cryogenics

NMN

I think I will bring this killed thread up with a discussion. You know what? I don't care if you don't like it, I'm bored, and this eats up about 5 minutes of my time. Sue me.

Ok, Cryogenics. Um... I think it is a cool idea, but is highly impractical. It would only work if you were sealed in a secure location. A location that claims to be around in X years. Even then you won't even know if you died if the location was breached.

I wouldn't try only because I think living a life at a certain time is all you need. Why prolong jsut to see the 'next 50 years'? That's selfishness. The only way I would do it is if I was going on a space expedition that would take several years, so supllies could be saved. Like in '2001: A Sopace Odyssey'.

And that's it. Now discuss people.

ThereIsNoMatrix

No.

Go try cryonic freezing yourself:
http://www.alcor.org/

AlmightyOne

Yes & No, because of the info I was enlightened by from this site: http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_743.shtml
Though I will say it could be possible in the near future, but things right now aren't looking to good because of all the dangers involved.

Helios

I say yes it could be practical with the right methods. Yes I would cryofreeze myself given the chance (not any time soon though), yeah Im selfish so what.

The biggest problem I see is freezing the body without heavily damaging the body, and succesfully un-freezing the bidy without the body falling apart. :\

Possible aplications of course there is the "freeze till there's a cure" one, and then like nmn said for space exploration. That way the only time supplies would be used would be during departure and arrival.

HomoUniversalis

Most cryogenic companies are fronts to make a quick buck. Most of them go bankrupt, and the corpses are tossed in the garbage/incinerated.

I think we will have a better chance at finding out what causes 'death', and fighting that, instead of freezing ourselves. Why not just transplant our brains to cloned bodies?

Mr U

Helios

MacLeod

A potential hot topic, but I think its not as deep as I had hoped.
For one thing, science and practicality aside, there are also ethical and societal questions. What happens when, a hundred years later, you wake up? If you were frozen, that is. Can you imagine someone from a hundred years ago suddenly thrust into our world? Can you imagine a large number of them? What happens when a large number of people, dissatisfied with the world, decide to try it? Now they not only cannot interact with the world till they wake; they become a liability to the waking world which has to maintain them? Or possible crimes and abuse; people who kidnap frozen corpses, or cheat people to freeze themselves for nefarious reasons? These are perhaps the biggest non-scientific problems we have, and are very hard to resolve.

AlmightyOne

Knowing the problems involved is one thing, but what we'll never know is the reaction of the woken person. Things like shock, heart attack etc. are very likely after waking up 100 year or so later. Memory loss could very well be another case, from the frozen brain cells, and therefore people might not even remember what they did, and/or what happend to them. Reading the attachment I posted you'll se this could very well be possible to do in the future, but the problems involved may slow this down and very well stop it all together.

I myself know, I would like to live my life to the fullest, dying when I'm ment to die. I wouldn't like to wake up 100 yeat later not knowing a single person, and having everyone I did know dead. I also think if this become true and possible, it will be used for the dead not the living, therefore preserving the body, so it wont rot. That will most likely be used for the famous, presidants etc. so we can look back on them to study.

Morkeleb

As you can all tell, I have not kept up with this site very well. Overall, I was let down. Intellectually, very few members here stimulate me; thus, I was forced to slip away into a dark oblivion in which I educated myself. But now I have decided to return and see what everyone has been doing.

As for this thread, I am mightily surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that for this to work the body was still be alive. IN OTHER WORDS, you must still be a living, breathing member of society when you are frozen. I don't know about you all, but voluntarily subjecting myself to subzero temperatures just for a gamble on a life extension (no immortality here folks), doesn't seem all that practical.

I had hoped that some would, as Mr. U did, take the next leap and determine that fighting death is the only way to find ultimate survival. Not that I'm really for this idea either. As a staunch supporter of utilitarian bioethics, I have to say that I completely disagree with cyrogenics and discovering the "cure" for death (whether it be cancer, AIDS, or whatever other marvelous disease out there-my personal fav Ebola [just a sidebar]).

Anyone out there interested in utilitarian bioethics? Any interest let me know because I would like to see if I could get a thread going with that. Maybe I could drum up some intellectually stimulating discussions with that one.

Best of luck with all your pursuits!

HomoUniversalis

we know what causes death, oxidation and the release of special proteins in all your cells over time. In every person the release of these special proteins are ejected at different rates, in other words no matter how good of a diet you have you can only live to a certain age. Oxidation also a process that differs from person to person.

A brain transplant is highly impractical imo, I think that it would be wise to not try a brain transplant untill we know how every single part works. For one where would you 'cut' at, the base of the madula ablongada (brain stem) or higher up ?

A type od suspended animation chamber would be so much better.

I love neurology, and have read a lot about it, and even the experts call it the brain stem. Not medula oblongata.

My suggestion is ripping out the entire Central Nervous System (Don't worry, I won't bother you with the greek/latin terms as they are confusing), cutting off the nerves, and attaching them to the new kind of nerves. This will however require some research, but hey, I never said it was going to be easy.

Morkeleb, do not expect me to stimulate you intelectually. I consider myself to be an intelectual, but I find that the most challenging questions come not from the experts but from a four-year old. After all, younger people have a much faster and inquisitive mind than we do, assuming you are not four-year old, though I have reason to believe so judging by your social capablities.

If you want a good debate with me, bring it on, as you will find me easily stimulated on all kinds of subjects. Do not expect me to tolerate insults against me or other members, however. I dislike people who believe themselves to be better than others because of the little more knowledge they posses.

Utilitarian bioethics? You disgust me. That's all I am going to say.

Mr U

Morkeleb

I am quite surprised that you would condemn me, Mr. U. You who have always been condescending to others on this site. I took an extensive leave of absence for reasons that are once again glaring obvious to me; this site is of no substance. So, once again, I shall pardon myself and look for more intellectual pursuits elsewhere.

As for personal slander, Mr. U, refer back to your statements in the Kerry v. Bush thread. It should not be tolerated. If you wish to address my "social capabilities" we shall discuss them. It saddens me that any one may gain access to a computer and post to their heart's content.

Now, back to the subject at hand. Utilitarian bioethics is an intriguing, and slightly more disturbing portion of science and philosophy. I am intrigued to know why they disgust you so? Caring for the weak and inefficient members of society goes against what is natural. Read On the Origin of Species sometime, all of you. Two words: Natural Selection. All utilitarian bioethics is a reversion to that basic premise.

Good-bye and best of luck,
Morkeleb

HomoUniversalis

I know what utilitarian bioethics means, Morkeleb. It disgusts me, much like the Nazi-regime of Adolf Hitler disgusts me. It is sad to see Darwin so misplaced.

I did not slander you. You insulted me, and the members of this board, and you elected the wrong member to mess with. Especially when saying that no one here is intelectually challenging.

If you want to debate ethics, go to the culture section.

Mr U

MacLeod

Interesting. How did this discussion go this far?
Now Morkel, if you still deign to stay around for replies, I'm a little intrigued at this whole bioethics issue. I've thought about it for some time myself, and have come to the conclusion that caring for those unable to 'operate at peak efficiency', which goes against what I assume is eugenics on a merciless scale, is one of the many things that distinguish us as humans, above what you deem natural.
For one thing, how much of humanity is not about practicality? Would you want to give up your emotions? Your drive for comfort and leisure? Or Love? Would not empathy to people, especially people who you once cared for immensely till whatever befell them happened, be higher than a mere fight for survival? We didn't find our way to the top of the food chain just being tough, humanity survived in numbers. Some of these ethics naturally manisfested in caring, no strings attached.
Lastly, how many of these supposed burdens on society will stay this way? This is almost like the popular Euthanasia question. Beethovan was deaf, Stephen Hawking had - what, cerebral palsy? Patton was autistic...where would we be without them? And old parents...they gave their kids their all to get the axe when they got too feeble?
A big reason why we're human is because we have ethics, and we look above the mundane, the practical. Asking us to abandon them, while practically sound, is also demeaning to our way of life and existance. While I do not disagree that a society based on this thinking can survive, even thrive, I would not want to see humanity in this form.

EDIT: And to bring up an old topic HU, the secrets of death are in the very keys to life itself. Our genes. Oxidation, UV rays and whatever else aside, our genes carry within themselves the own code to our destruction. We are simply not meant to live beyond what is deemed necessary to continue the species, everything we've done so far is, in a biological scale, unnatural.
Various details - correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't read up on these for some time: with each duplication of our genes, a fair amount of error is incurred. This results in the unique aberrations necessary to change and mutation and evolution, but also results in a degradation of our code, all over our bodies. These errors grow exponentially in time, so simply speaking, it's going to be very hard to clone a young man from the genes of an old man.
Also, The cells in our brains are among the few in the human body that cannot duplicate themselves: what you have in your brain as a kid you will use for the rest of your life. That's why as they steadily die and run out we see memory loss in old people. Strike off the 'cloned brain' concept too.
Sad, huh? No matter how much we want it, Immortality is still so out of our reach...:(

HomoUniversalis

Also, The cells in our brains are among the few in the human body that cannot duplicate themselves: what you have in your brain as a kid you will use for the rest of your life. That's why as they steadily die and run out we see memory loss in old people. Strike off the 'cloned brain' concept too.

Actually, as I see it, this is not true. Our brain cells regenerate until we are 40, or something along this lines. Also, it has been shown that we can clone a person without side-effects in a couple of years. Sadly, it's illegal. Also, science is making progress on removing age as well...

I feel I must refine my point on utilitarian bioethics. It disgusts me, firstly because it acts as if disabled are less than human. If dogs are less than human, should we kill them for being dogs? No! And still, pet dogs live off the food that could be used to support people.
We are incapable of seeing the hierarchy of our own species, as we are part of it. We are all alike, whether we like it or not. The disabled are not a weight on our system, the lazy are. Let's mass-murder them, instead, beginning with those exercising politics, art, religion, filosophy, and literature as a job. Than we kill everyone over 65, as most of them aren't working, than everyone under 18, since they aren't working either. Than, we kill everyone unemployed from 18-65, and the remainder we kill just for precaution in case they might just get lazy.

Mr U

MacLeod

'Clone a person', HU? What specifically? I know you can clone an adult, since Dolly proved to be so, but I'm talking about the old, where cellular degeneration is acute. Also, even if this is possible, it would require tampering with the sample i.e. adding other gene components, possibly from samples of an earlier age I purposely left out of the question.
And as for the brain cells thing I suppose that's where my info was outdated. But still, degeneration is indeed there, and inarguably earlier than most cells, right? In fact, one of the few things that indeed grow unceasingly is our nose. If you were to somehow stop aging...you'd end up with a huge honker in a couple of centuries, just to state one complication.

Morkeleb

Well, I'm back. Alas, I am changing my mind; to a certain extent expanding my horizons. Mr. U, thank you for replying. I am extending the white flag here, less personal slander and more intellectual conversation. I did not mean to necessarily insult anyone, as I hate insult as much as anyone else, but I have found that when proded rather uncomfortably most people will respond. That was all I was hoping to do; stimulate. Perhaps, alas no, it was the wrong way to approach the situation. Thank you all for pointing out my error.

As for utilitarian bioethics, I am not going on some Hitler crazed mania here. I loathe what Hitler did, he was a substandard individual that the world would have been better off never having. I am approaching utilitarian bioethics from its purest form. That is this:

Utilitarian bioethics (henceforth UB for ease of typing) is based on the premise that every individual has a consumption and a utility function. When people are unable to produce enough (utility) to meet their consumption function they are a drain on its society, that is to say us. UB in a pure form excludes the elderly, because they should be able to meet there consumption function in their youth and exceed that to provide for themselves in old age. (The whole 401K thing in the US).

In pure UB, certain mentally or physically impaired individuals are also spared in members of their family are willing to decrease their individual consumption functions, while maintaining a high utility function. The excess, that is difference between actual utility and actual consumption is positive, meaning that they have additional means of supporting those members of their families.

I do NOT support the senseless slaughter of human beings, but as Mr. U pointed out the lazy and useless members of society would be included. I am not saying kill them either, but rather if they are unable to meet their consumption function it should not fall on society to be their burden to care for them.

I possess a certain amount of empathy, but it tires me to see so many people getting a "free ride" becasue they voluntarily choose to be nonproductive. That is my stance on UB. I know that it may seem harsh, but in today's world of massive overpopulation, a firmer stance is necessary at times. I appreciate replies, and as I am turning over a new leaf (trust me no easy feat) I hope others follow suit and refrain from personal attacks. If I am wrong or flawed in your belief, contradict my viewpoint and theories, please do not attack me.

Gracias, Morkeleb

MacLeod

Ah, we're getting somewhere. If I'm allowed to speak, then? As far as I know, since this has been a problem of misunderstanding and/or miscommunication, you should go unmolested, Morkel. Just don't pull something like that, again.
To the points - for one thing, we're already practicing a limited form of your stated practice by removing many freedoms from the very sick or the criminal to give to the rest of society. Death perhaps should not be an answer to these questions...yet the idea of outcasting raises many questions as well as answers, if that is the next best course, I assume. These questions, I hope, do not need to be elaborated.
For another thing: who's going to create these standards, and implement the checks and balances? Who has the right to equate human worth in units of measurable quantity? And Lastly; how about that question again, about humans with worth beyond the measurable? Even hardened criminals and the severely disabled have hidden capabilities: is it so easy to deem them worthless? Or, find their worth?

Morkeleb

I have to say that humans do have an innate worth. But sadly, some choose to give up this worth by being an unnecessary burden on society. I know that every person is priceless (all those MasterCard commercials make that clear :D ), but what of the problem of overpopulation then? If we are to do something about this issue, I am assuming for ease of argument that you agree we have a problem, what should we do?

I know that many, if not most people, would have/do have a problem with UB. I am just not sure there is another solution. I am also curious to know which rights of the criminally insane and whatnot we are giving to the rest of society. Those people that are imprisoned, for one reason or antoher, become a tremendous burden on their society.

I am not advocating a swifter or more inclusive death penalty here. I am simply hoping that there could be a way to cause people to become more productive. The mere existence of UB would hopefully serve as a motivator to the unmotivated to become productive. Having the knowledge that others will not care for you becomes a source of motivation because it means that you will have to care for yourself.

I'm not sure what it is exactly that I hope to achieve, except that I am greatly saddened to see the senseless destruction of the Earth and would like to see it stop. Again, let me know about some other ideas you may have, as right now I am clueless about how to proceed :wtf: (don't want to offend anyone either)

HomoUniversalis

Ah. I misinterpreted you. For that I apologize. Too often have I debated with UB-supporters who feel it is their duty to murder disabled children to spare the family.

If I am wrong or flawed in your belief, contradict my viewpoint and theories, please do not attack me.

It is not my intention to attack you at all. In fact, if you find that members are attacking you, please use the 'Report this post to a moderator'-button. That way, we, the administration can deal with the problem :).

I think we will both agree that the main problem, including the problem with Hitler, lies in simplifaction. What do I mean by this?

Each person has a production-side, and a consumer-side, correct? The problem is that consuming is not restricted to food. One can also consume information, for example, and one can also produce information.

Should someone like a software developer, who creates information, get food in return? If you agree on this, I presume you also agree that information, and the value of information is difficult to determine. Though it is easy to say that one kilo of lamb-chops is worth more than one gram of lamb-chops, it is not as easy as stating that one gigabyte of info is worth more than one kilobyte of info.

After all, perhaps a person is more interested in the document of one kylobyte than the 3D action game of one gigabyte.

The problem is that it is, in real life, is not easy to express the p and c values of one individual. A physically disabled person may, create software that is valued throughout the world, and is much more valuable than the labour he could have done had he not been disabled.

Although your theory is in essence, interesting, I find it much more interesting on how you plan to apply that theory on a system of government.

Mr U

Morkeleb

I know that physically and mentally disabled individuals are productive (look at Stephen Hawking), that is why those things do not figure into my theory.

Thank you for helping to remind me of the value beyond merely tangible things that people produce, for you are correct Mr. U, that things like information cannot be so easily measured.

I would have to say that addressing this issue to government would be problematic. Living in the US that is the only true measure I have to go on, so forgive me members that are from other countries I do not mean to exclude you but I have no basis to discuss this on.

Addressing this issue in America would be particularly cumbersome, as we have many social and political reforms that go against the very nature of my theory of UB. Implementation would have to begin by educating the masses. That is to do what I have tried to do here. As Mr. U pointed out misunderstanding led to the rejection of a theory that was not fully discussed. So first, it would be necessary to inform people that UB is not about senseless slaughter, that it is NOT about murder at all.

After educating the people, it would be important to state that people would still be able to live off of charity, but it could only be voluntary charity. That is people that want to help support others should be allowed to do so, but that those that do not wish to support people that either cannot or most disturbing choose not to work.

Every week I have a certain amount of money withheld to support federal and state programs for Medicaid and Welfare, etc. I do not like having those things withheld. However, I choice to volunteer time to the Red Cross and ASPCA. I also choose to donate money to both charities, as well as others. The difference being, that I feel I am helping others that cannot help themselves or are unable to completely care for themselves. Versus those that simply choice to do nothing to alter their situation.

I'm not sure if this makes things clearer. But I tried :)

MacLeod

Right. To start on yours first Morkeleb, yes we do have a population problem. But no, UB isn't a good answer to the solution; it's merely a simple one. My personal belief is that our world system wrongly encourages population growth - study simple macroeconomics and see. If even an aging population is not allowed, how else can they allow any other form of population shrinkage that isn't profitable?
Now about the rights for the criminal. His (complete) freedom of speech and travel for one thing is taken away. Also his choice of food and drink. All this, to allow safety and perhaps more resources (especially if we consider the damage he would've done without control) to the rest of the world.
Then about worth. Yes, HU has already encompassed my answer. It's just that 'productivity' itself is flawed. In measurement, declaration and stance. It's like declaring humans as demarkable work units which we clearly are not. Would you declare a grafitti artist useless? Or useful? A multimillionare who rapes young women? Or single (no 'parent' or equivalent sharing units) but productive people who suddenly are perhaps temporarily (like pregnancy) disabled? Are you sure everyone would help?
Also, your system can only work when a government has a strong amount of perhaps totalitarian control over its citizens, which is clearly difficult to achieve. Education is also alot harder to implement than believed...look at Communism for example. Also, many people are in fact presently living off the land, without support from the governments (mostly through crime). They are indeed cut off, yet they not only can take care of themselves, they're imposing on society, with a risk of larger such numbers if we merely cut off support to 'useless' members. Death, then? I don't know....this whole thing is just too unwieldy to effectively implement.
Ah, and like HU says, no-one here who knows what he's doing attacks without provocation. No need to fear anything beyond a lack of understanding.

Morkeleb

I see your point MacLeod. I do not think that there is any easy or simple solution to the population problem. And I do not advocate a totolitarian rule (yes Communism in Russia, etc, but also look at many South American countires where totalitarian rule has led to the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocents and the loss of cultures). I do feel though, that UB has something to offer. As I am fond of saying, "good in theory, but not in practice".

The moral implications of UB are far reaching, and as my last post stated I am willing to admit that my ideas are flawed, but I am not supposing to offer an end all and be all to the world's many problems. I feel that it is important to understand, that I do not know where to take this beyond theory. In practice I am fully aware that this will not work. My last post was merely a simplified version of what I would like to see happen. There were many steps and agruments left out.

I am thrilled to see that there is interest in this subject, as interest is what first gains awareness. What would you purpose instead? Instead of stating the flaws that I already know are inherent to my idea. I would be interested to know what others think would be plausible solutions or at least partial solutions to this issue. :eek:

MacLeod

Unfortunately, I'm more a thread-answerer than a starter, so I don't believe I can add any better ideas, I'm sorry about that. :p I critique ideas, but not always negatively, and definitely not to humiliate. But hey, start a good enough discussion in this forum and you'll naturally get answers...many of us were in fact itching for a good debate for longer than you know.
And sorry again for the misunderstanding: I was under the impression you were advocating it very seriously. I know you don't advocate a (possibly) totalitarian society - very few do. That's why I said the idea is flawed in the first place.
Now, I do have an idea, and that was raised in one of my posts: our population is booming and causing such headaches because our society cannot help but to. Thanks to systems like consumerism and economics (which I can't think of anything better though) we can't help but lay waste the land around us and duplicate like viruses. Put a stop to that, either by curbing our desire for resources or finding a way to get those resources easier or both; reduce the population gradually through methods like education (irony, I know), and it just might work.

Morkeleb

So we have moved from cryogenics to population control; what fun!!! Anyway, I have to agree MacLeod that the ultimate (for lack of a better word) solution lies in changing consumer behavior.

To pose a question: Why is it that people living in rural portions of Africa, the United States, etc, seem to be able to live with less? The answer lies in that they know no better. That is what they have come to accept as normal.

So what I pose, is changing what is considered normal. Here in the good old USA, we have this faulty notion that excess is good. I am not completely guilt free here. I have this incredible desire for knowledge and computer related stuff. But the need to have more and more and more (you get the picture). I mean if you have one perfectly functioning car, why do you need 2 or 10? It vexes me that people are so desirous of nonessential things.

So I guess we are left with educating (yes, I love the irony) the people. How do we do that, well, your guess is as good as mine. Please continue with the discussion/debate as I live for this kind of thing. Thanks!