Organ markets, vitrification, and cryonics abroad

Organ markets, vitrification, and cryonics abroad

Joined: December 6th, 2009, 5:20 am

December 19th, 2009, 11:29 pm #1

We know that the demand for organs is not being met by donors, and organs do not remain viable outside the host for long, limiting inventories to living donors, the recently deceased, and those whose bodies are kept alive artificially. The technology to preserve organs outside the body is key to increasing the supply of viable organs for transplant, and is closer and potentially more cost-effective than laboratory-grown organs.

Vitrification is one possibility for preserving organs outside the host for extended storage and long-range transport. As you well know, it is also key to cryonic suspension. Improvements in vitrification for commercial organ preservation applications could well increase the prospects for successful suspension and future revival.

With organ markets illegal, there are no market incentives for live donors etc, let alone for developing this technology. With the overly complex way organ donation trades are carried out today (ever heard of a "non-simultaneous extended altruistic donor chain"?), a venture capitalist could not expect to profit from investing in this.

The black markets of China, Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia, East Europe and ahem, New Jersey aside, the regulatory environment can be quite different beyond the US and EU. Some countries are more pragmatic about organ markets than others, and are more likely to allow them to exist in some form. Regulatory arbitrage would attract organ preservation development to these countries. You might very well travel to Dubai (well, or maybe Saudi) in the future for suspension.
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 20th, 2009, 12:38 am #2

That's the understatement of the week! While admittedly not your central point, you can't get more pragmatic than China, where if you are unliked for your political or religious views, you end up in prison, and often from there are involuntarily recruited for this program:

http://organharvestinvestigation.net/

I hesitate to call it their "black market" as since the government is doing it, it is obviously perfectly legal there, but droves of wealthy foreigners needing organ transplants get their surgeries done in China, source of the "freshest" organs available anywhere.

Wealthy cryonicists could avoid the Western ethical issues surrounding the cloning of bodies for brain transplants (once the technology is developed for same), by arranging for it to be done in China, where presumably every organ (except the brain) could be purchased in a fully-functional and intact body. Selected in advance. Grown to order.

Having commented the above, I advocate none of it. Just another boredom breaker.

Cheers,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 6th, 2009, 5:20 am

December 20th, 2009, 5:12 am #3

While the Chinese case about political prisoners is more black than gray, I wouldn't be so quick to pass judgment on the morality of organ markets per se. From a pragmatic standpoint, we know that just because its illegal doesn't mean the demand goes away, and allowing a legal, regulated alternative might well reduce its illicit counterpart. I doubt highly discriminating transplant tourists would consider China or Pakistan their top choice in advanced medical services and prefer to take their business somewhere else if it were available. The arguments are analogous to drug legalization, the sex trade, surrogacy...
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 20th, 2009, 6:56 am #4

We know that the demand for organs is not being met by donors, and organs do not remain viable outside the host for long, limiting inventories to living donors, the recently deceased, and those whose bodies are kept alive artificially. The technology to preserve organs outside the body is key to increasing the supply of viable organs for transplant, and is closer and potentially more cost-effective than laboratory-grown organs.

Vitrification is one possibility for preserving organs outside the host for extended storage and long-range transport. As you well know, it is also key to cryonic suspension. Improvements in vitrification for commercial organ preservation applications could well increase the prospects for successful suspension and future revival.

With organ markets illegal, there are no market incentives for live donors etc, let alone for developing this technology. With the overly complex way organ donation trades are carried out today (ever heard of a "non-simultaneous extended altruistic donor chain"?), a venture capitalist could not expect to profit from investing in this.

The black markets of China, Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia, East Europe and ahem, New Jersey aside, the regulatory environment can be quite different beyond the US and EU. Some countries are more pragmatic about organ markets than others, and are more likely to allow them to exist in some form. Regulatory arbitrage would attract organ preservation development to these countries. You might very well travel to Dubai (well, or maybe Saudi) in the future for suspension.
I guess one of the reasons I decided to China-bash a bit, other than their utter disregard for human rights, is that they have way too many people to justify their existence for on our planet.

They are historically known for having way too many people even to feed. This has probably not changed a whole lot, nor with the case of India.

Which brings me to question why we need more people on our planet. It is obviously not to provide more taxes to fund R & D projects to get us enhanced technology. These nations who have decided to let their people act like frogs or rabbits and populate at will, have only proven that if you do that, you get people competing for the basic necessities of life such as food and water, not people who advance technology.

So I wonder if it would not be better to let the paradigm largely followed by N. America/European countries prevail? They seem to have the lower birth rates, plus the more advanced technological developments. As if we have any control over which paradigm prevails, ha! :D

The world is already too crowded, IMO. While I do not favor solutions on the order of genocides, we could certainly start discouraging the rampant propagating seen in way too many parts of the planet. Economic sanctions could do a lot to encourage birth control, if anyone cared. Unfortunately, the USA as a prime example cares not at all that certain of its own states are being entirely overrun by non-native populations who think huge families are "in".

What else can I say and not be politically-incorrect,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 20th, 2009, 2:43 pm #5

4 billion?

2?


100,000?


Maybe 1. You.

How do you determine your opinion?
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 20th, 2009, 4:28 pm #6

I guess one of the reasons I decided to China-bash a bit, other than their utter disregard for human rights, is that they have way too many people to justify their existence for on our planet.

They are historically known for having way too many people even to feed. This has probably not changed a whole lot, nor with the case of India.

Which brings me to question why we need more people on our planet. It is obviously not to provide more taxes to fund R & D projects to get us enhanced technology. These nations who have decided to let their people act like frogs or rabbits and populate at will, have only proven that if you do that, you get people competing for the basic necessities of life such as food and water, not people who advance technology.

So I wonder if it would not be better to let the paradigm largely followed by N. America/European countries prevail? They seem to have the lower birth rates, plus the more advanced technological developments. As if we have any control over which paradigm prevails, ha! :D

The world is already too crowded, IMO. While I do not favor solutions on the order of genocides, we could certainly start discouraging the rampant propagating seen in way too many parts of the planet. Economic sanctions could do a lot to encourage birth control, if anyone cared. Unfortunately, the USA as a prime example cares not at all that certain of its own states are being entirely overrun by non-native populations who think huge families are "in".

What else can I say and not be politically-incorrect,

FD
I guess one of the reasons I decided to China-bash a bit, other than their utter disregard for human rights, is that they have way too many people to justify their existence for on our planet.
A country which produces GDP growth at 8 percent a year and exports increasingly valuable goods must have something going for it. If Mexico's 106 million people got raptured and the same number of Chinese came over to replace them, the newcomers would probably produce a similar economic miracle south of the U.S. border. The Chinese apparently possess valuable human and social capital which they created to survive in harsh conditions, and which has started to pay off for all of us when they got access to markets in the rest of the world.

Besides, I've heard rumors of a Chinese-connected cryonics venture in the Bay Area. These people might come to our rescue, so I don't want to express ill will towards them.
Last edited by advancedatheist on December 20th, 2009, 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 20th, 2009, 5:35 pm #7

...and he successfully froze and thawed banana cream pie.
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 20th, 2009, 7:24 pm #8

I guess one of the reasons I decided to China-bash a bit, other than their utter disregard for human rights, is that they have way too many people to justify their existence for on our planet.
A country which produces GDP growth at 8 percent a year and exports increasingly valuable goods must have something going for it. If Mexico's 106 million people got raptured and the same number of Chinese came over to replace them, the newcomers would probably produce a similar economic miracle south of the U.S. border. The Chinese apparently possess valuable human and social capital which they created to survive in harsh conditions, and which has started to pay off for all of us when they got access to markets in the rest of the world.

Besides, I've heard rumors of a Chinese-connected cryonics venture in the Bay Area. These people might come to our rescue, so I don't want to express ill will towards them.
When the Chinese take over cryonics, and possibly the rest of the Western Economy, we certainly don't want to risk being looked down on by them, thrown in jail, and having our organs harvested while we watch.

Same applies to the Singularity AI when it arrives.

Stay on the good side of your enemy, and you may die swiftly and painlessly rather than ...

FD
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 20th, 2009, 7:25 pm #9

4 billion?

2?


100,000?


Maybe 1. You.

How do you determine your opinion?
Being the answer to life, the universe, and everything, it follows that it is the answer to your question as well.

Now tell us, Phil, why you think that more billions of people are going to equate to more and better technology, instead of equating to more and better disease and starvation? Support it with facts and scientific studies, not philossify and especially not merely because that L fellow says it's so.

Cheers,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

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

December 20th, 2009, 9:04 pm #10

...so obviously we need people. But setting 42 aside, what's your second best number? Do you have one?
Quote
Like
Share