cryonics organization alternatives

cryonics organization alternatives

Joined: September 12th, 2007, 12:07 am

September 12th, 2007, 12:14 am #1

Hi everyone. This is my first time posting. I am interested in someday signing up with one of the cryonics organizations. Does anyone know if the cryonics organizations ever agree to alternative (and possibly cheaper) ways to preserve people (or even pets). I am not saying that these alternatives are in any way close to being as effective as the "usual" way of preserving things. For example: 1. Besides straight freezing a person, they could use a different chemical fixation (glycerol?) at lower temperatures? 2. Instead of straight freezing a pet, they could place the animal in a dry ice container (or would this be as expensive as placing it in liquid nitrogen?).
Please let me know what you think of these possible methods. And sorry for my lack of familiarity with the terms (I am learning).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 26th, 2004, 6:22 pm

September 12th, 2007, 1:23 pm #2

I don't know if they offer any options cheaper than the straight freeze. I've heard speculation about the viability of chemical fixatives and permafrost burials, but none of the agencies offer those as far as I know.

--
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.proxy7.com/nph-proxy3.cgi/01 ... 91677">The Cold Filter</a>
A forum dedicated to reporting on and discussing cryonics and cryo related topics.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 22nd, 2008, 5:01 pm

September 22nd, 2008, 5:26 pm #3

Hi everyone. This is my first time posting. I am interested in someday signing up with one of the cryonics organizations. Does anyone know if the cryonics organizations ever agree to alternative (and possibly cheaper) ways to preserve people (or even pets). I am not saying that these alternatives are in any way close to being as effective as the "usual" way of preserving things. For example: 1. Besides straight freezing a person, they could use a different chemical fixation (glycerol?) at lower temperatures? 2. Instead of straight freezing a pet, they could place the animal in a dry ice container (or would this be as expensive as placing it in liquid nitrogen?).
Please let me know what you think of these possible methods. And sorry for my lack of familiarity with the terms (I am learning).
Low-cost preservation may be a permafrost burial in Canada. It requires an individual arrangement which http://www.cryocdn.org/perma.html informs about. But I live in Germany and a payment for delivery of a human in postmortal condition from Germany to Canada would be too much. So my small income doesn't allow a Life Insurance for Cryonics and related investments.

Only for Life Extension, a human brain in longterm storage is impossible in Germany. In regions of Europe and nearby, only Kriorus in Russia is available. Actually, I'm trying to figure out the terms for a cheap arrangement granting a permafrost burial in Siberia. When in postmortal condition, a big expense will be for delivery by plane from Germany to Russia. Delivery including air transport requires the unacceptable expense of 6000 Euro. Delivery by car is hard to get, just because of the great distance and transit countries. Railways providers don't do that kind of transportation anymore.

Now I'm checking out a cheap delivery to Moscow by car. If there's a way, I could search further and ask if there's anyone who offers a special low-cost support in hindsight to chemo suspension and a permafrost burial in Siberia. What's on? Should I dare to send an inquiry to Kriorus direcly right now, just for the purpose of chemo suspension only?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 12th, 2007, 3:45 pm

September 24th, 2008, 12:12 am #4

Hi everyone. This is my first time posting. I am interested in someday signing up with one of the cryonics organizations. Does anyone know if the cryonics organizations ever agree to alternative (and possibly cheaper) ways to preserve people (or even pets). I am not saying that these alternatives are in any way close to being as effective as the "usual" way of preserving things. For example: 1. Besides straight freezing a person, they could use a different chemical fixation (glycerol?) at lower temperatures? 2. Instead of straight freezing a pet, they could place the animal in a dry ice container (or would this be as expensive as placing it in liquid nitrogen?).
Please let me know what you think of these possible methods. And sorry for my lack of familiarity with the terms (I am learning).
The cheapest thing is this: wait for Jordan Sparks to open his cryonics non-profit. He was planning to offer a $10,000 human cryopreservation.

As for "different chemicals," people are working on discovering new ones.

IMO Canadian summers aren't cold enough even in yellowknife. And chemical preservations kill every cell. (I've yet to hear someone explain how these cells would be revived.)
Last edited by Edward-M on September 24th, 2008, 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 1st, 2007, 4:06 am

September 24th, 2008, 1:21 am #5

chemical preservations kills every cell. So do cryoprotectants. There are no life cells. Only the potential to be recovered and be repaired. We do not know the future. Then they may be able to repair both. At the present it looks as if freezing will do better in the future.
My concern is different. I can not think why people in the future will even bother to do it for me even if the technology exists to recover and repair.
Think of it. Billions of frozen people.
Why would they select me or you for that matter?

Jan
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 16th, 2008, 4:54 am

September 24th, 2008, 2:10 am #6

I don't exactly see billions of people signing up for cryonics yet.

Maybe revive you for colonization or just basic human kindness? With the numbers being so low thus far maybe even as a historical curiosity.

Even with your doubts of why you do you not think your chances are better if you are preserved over regular burial or cremation? As it's our lives we're talking about I feel that's worth it even with the risk of never being revived.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

September 24th, 2008, 2:42 am #7

chemical preservations kills every cell. So do cryoprotectants. There are no life cells. Only the potential to be recovered and be repaired. We do not know the future. Then they may be able to repair both. At the present it looks as if freezing will do better in the future.
My concern is different. I can not think why people in the future will even bother to do it for me even if the technology exists to recover and repair.
Think of it. Billions of frozen people.
Why would they select me or you for that matter?

Jan
Fell to the ground and doesn't move? Don't hear breathing? No heartbeat? All those have been "brought back to life" myriad times, so the legal/societal definition of "death" keeps getting its bar moved up. When scientists finally determine for certain as to where and how memories are stored, and what constitutes identity, I would not be surprised to see cryonic preservation of whatever those things are, become the standard medical practice. In other words, you would be malpracticing and breaking the law if you did not cryopreserve someone who met the criteria for not yet reaching information theoretic death. Not only that, future societies would be going against their mores and laws to not reanimate someone who could be with their current technologies. I don't see the future as bleak as Basie does.

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

September 24th, 2008, 2:52 am #8

The cheapest thing is this: wait for Jordan Sparks to open his cryonics non-profit. He was planning to offer a $10,000 human cryopreservation.

As for "different chemicals," people are working on discovering new ones.

IMO Canadian summers aren't cold enough even in yellowknife. And chemical preservations kill every cell. (I've yet to hear someone explain how these cells would be revived.)
You forget that the cells are already legally "dead". Whether fixation or cryopreservation chemicals are used on them, that is right - you have not seen how they will be revived, because the technology is not here yet.

Nor is Jordan Sparks' Oregon Cryonics. Somebody posted that his wife gave him an edict to choose between her and a cryonics business. Others have had such choices presented to them, and lost the wife. See the threads about hostile spouses. If this is the case with Jordan Sparks he would do well to enjoy the 20 years with his family, after which most marriages break up anyway, but the kids are gone on and life becomes good.

So you could very well wait 20 years for Jordan, but of course I cannot speak for him.

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 3rd, 2005, 2:52 am

September 24th, 2008, 4:28 am #9

As Tom Leykis advocates: Don't get married. Don't father children. Treat women like sexual temp workers.

Then you can live pretty much the way you want without having to put up with women's selfishness, and you can keep more of your money.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 24th, 2008, 4:25 am

September 24th, 2008, 4:53 am #10

I don't exactly see billions of people signing up for cryonics yet.

Maybe revive you for colonization or just basic human kindness? With the numbers being so low thus far maybe even as a historical curiosity.

Even with your doubts of why you do you not think your chances are better if you are preserved over regular burial or cremation? As it's our lives we're talking about I feel that's worth it even with the risk of never being revived.
Basie: "chemical preservations kills every cell. So do cryoprotectants."

That's wrong: cryoprotectants cause serious damage but have "low" cell death:

"[Propane-1,2-diol] is a useful biological vitrifying agent but, although of relatively low toxicity, it still has substantial damaging effects on cells."
-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18160065

"Ethylene glycol itself has low systemic toxicity."
-- http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/viable.html

Basie: "There are no live cells."

Human cells can survive being cooled & revived: for example human embryos. A cooled cell isn't a dead cell.

The real issue is toxicity.

Quote
Like
Share