Monolithic dome storage and cryonics

Monolithic dome storage and cryonics

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

September 20th, 2009, 6:00 pm #1

I've been impressed with the qualities of monolithic domes for some time now. They can be made extremely big, at a low cost, with high energy efficiency. The dome shape is architecturally more sound than a square shape, because with square shapes the force gets concentrated on the corners whereas a dome distributes the force evenly.

If you're still skeptical, this page is worth a read:

http://www.monolithic.com/stories/automated-storages

When we get to the point of placing millions of patients into storage per year, it occurs to me that the inherent advantages of monolithic domes could be an important part of achieving this goal in a cost-effective, safe, reliable manner.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 11th, 2005, 9:18 pm

September 22nd, 2009, 8:58 pm #2

.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

September 22nd, 2009, 10:33 pm #3

The dome with holes cut into the side a certain way creates a convection flow cooling the interior even more-- Mark Plus pointed that out to me-- it's a design that can be used now for a lot of things-- we dont' have to wait for cryonics to require large storage areas.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

September 27th, 2009, 1:32 am #4

Sure, domes are good for for relatively small-scale cryonics too.

I just mention large-scale cryonics because it is going to be way more cost-effective. To freeze a million people would only cost 100 times as much as to cryopreserve a thousand people. Domes would probably be the most cost-effective way to create sizable insulated structures.

Establishing and emphasizing that cheap cryonics is possible on a large scale could make a big difference in the number of people who seriously consider it for themselves. So many of the arguments against it seem to be based on cost and percieved ecological damage or selfishness. The fact is it is would be unselfish for everyone to choose cryonics because it would bring down the cost for everyone else. It would be less ecologically damaging because the energy usage per person would be reduced. Compared to burial or cremation, it could actually have a significantly reduced environmental impact.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

September 27th, 2009, 2:05 pm #5

Luke: "To freeze a million people would only cost 100 times as much as to cryopreserve a thousand people."

I believe this is a flawed statement. It might cost only 100 times as much to store a million cryonicists, as it costs to store one thousand cryonicists, but one has to consider the cost of the surgical procedures (man-power, disposables, sterilization of equipment, equipment replacement, etc.), and the cost of the solutions, which are quite expensive.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

September 27th, 2009, 2:14 pm #6

...just for the record. Luke is where cryos were in 1963.. most of us know better now... but Ettinger's vision predates Luke... and Luke isn't even acknowledging that... as well, kent pretends that he can store 10,000 people in timeship... which is still an absurd and goofy vision that reminds me of the spruce goose by Howard Hugues... and kent is exactly like Hughes... now...

By the way, maxim... I posted here and the mod didn't ok it yet but consdier publishing over regulation-- per my latest forum entiry if you can get there... they won't allow me to post links here... another goofy element... but there it is.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 8th, 2009, 3:02 am

September 27th, 2009, 3:16 pm #7

Luke: "To freeze a million people would only cost 100 times as much as to cryopreserve a thousand people."

I believe this is a flawed statement. It might cost only 100 times as much to store a million cryonicists, as it costs to store one thousand cryonicists, but one has to consider the cost of the surgical procedures (man-power, disposables, sterilization of equipment, equipment replacement, etc.), and the cost of the solutions, which are quite expensive.
Both Melody and Luke have some fine ideas. I read once that, although not spoken of much, cremation is one of the greatest sources of air pollution on the planet. Cryonics or some other type of preservation would certainly not be worse.
Must hurry off now as C.I.'s meeting begins shortly.

Later....jon
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

September 27th, 2009, 4:19 pm #8

remember the giant government freezers?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

September 27th, 2009, 7:52 pm #9

Luke: "To freeze a million people would only cost 100 times as much as to cryopreserve a thousand people."

I believe this is a flawed statement. It might cost only 100 times as much to store a million cryonicists, as it costs to store one thousand cryonicists, but one has to consider the cost of the surgical procedures (man-power, disposables, sterilization of equipment, equipment replacement, etc.), and the cost of the solutions, which are quite expensive.
I don't mean to downplay the value of stabilization... It is foolish to get frozen without stabilization when there is a possibility of stabilization. But if there is no place to be stored economically, stabilization is pointless to begin with. Arguably the reverse is not the case, since we do not know what degree of damage is reversible by advanced nanotechnology. All we know is that cryonics can preserve for thousands of years unchanged -- so if the chance is nonzero it remains the same for thousands of years.

It does provide a rather cruel gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" if some people can afford a good stabilization and others can only afford straight-freezing. The latter group takes an incredible risk of a) not surviving, b) losing memories, and c) awakening in a more distant and alien future. Nonetheless, it is without a doubt better than death without any cryopreservation at all. If it can be done at under the cost of a normal funeral, it will make people think harder about cryonics.

The solution to paying for stabilization costs could turn out to be legalizing early-entry cryonics, perhaps to the exclusion of physician-assisted suicide. (Some would label it a form of assisted suicide, but I would disagree. There is no guarantee of death, and an increased chance of ong-term survival as a result.) That would cut down on "end-of-life" costs considerably, more than enough to pay for free stabilization. Stabilization would be cheaper in such cases as well. This is unlikely to fly with right-wing or left-wing extremists of course, but it might easily work for moderates once cryonics comes to be taken seriously by the culture at large. Libertarians would accept it as well, but as a compromise since they are in favor of legalizing suicide in general. Swing voters tend to determine the outcome of elections, so I figure this is a nontrivial possibility despite lack of right or left wing extremist appeal.

Even if this does not come about, I expect that stabilization on a larger scale should be quite a bit more cost-effective. Solutions would be purchased in larger quantities that are cheaper per unit volume. The same equipment could be re-used more times, the same personnel would not need re-training. Deaths from a larger population would have more predictable rates, so you could plan for them better. Overall it would be more streamlined and smooth, and much more reliable. There would be multiple centers for it, perhaps a hospice or hospital in every city with the proper capabilities. Remote transport would be relatively rare, an integrated part of normal EMS.
Quote
Like
Share