16 replies to this topic

[Admiral Wesley]

Hey,

I was wondering if there was a place where I could actually be cryogenically frozen and brought back after a time. Like Fry on Futurama, but not accidentally. I want to wake up the day I turn 18, which would be February 22, 2014. I heard there was a lab in Arizona.

Also, this thread can double as a general discussion of the practice of cryogenic freezing. I heard that it's a popular practice for a guy to freeze his load so that he can impregnate females, even in death. Sperm banks. I think that's awesome, I can't wait 'till that becomes the only way for people to get pregnant, and safe sex becomes the norm, without any flimsy piece of shit condoms. Having your cake and eating it to, eh? (Crickets Chirp)

Also, I heard that EVERYTHING is stopped, so that means I may be chronologically 18, but look like a scummy little 13 year old, so I guess it ain't worth it.

[BeefJeRKy]

Technically when you're cryogenically frozen, your blood is replaced by some other antifreeze like material. So far we have no way to recover people who have been frozen. SO DON'T DO IT. Life may be harsh sometimes (very in certain cases), but you should remember that you only get one chance, so LIVE while you can. Back to cryogenics, I'm not very knowledgeable, but I don't think it will be too useful for extending life, but rather keeping some organs going for future use is good potential. See with gene therapy in the future, humans should be able to touch the 130-140 age barrier and it is possible the average lifespan will extend to 90-100.

[Admiral Wesley]

All right, and I was watching this history channel thing, and it was about eternal life, and it said that a good portion of the people alive today could be able to live forever by certain scientific B.S. I don't want to get into.

That's me, baby.

So I guess that it isn't possible to go the Philip J. Fry method, huh?

[Whitey]

In theory, if we could develop a way to successfully unfreeze you by 2014,then yes. But that's not the case at the moment, and I doubt it will be by that time. At the moment, if you are frozen, you're as good as dead.

[Dauth]

That and there's already significant betting that the first person to live to be 200 has already been born. So I wouldn't worry much about hitting 140-150, I'd worry about getting bored.

[BeefJeRKy]

Dauth, on 1 Sep 2009, 11:48, said:

That and there's already significant betting that the first person to live to be 200 has already been born. So I wouldn't worry much about hitting 140-150, I'd worry about getting bored.

I have always thought immortality must get boring especially if you outlive everyone else.

[Golan]

Eh, why would you want to be frozen in the first place? Imagine you're frozen for, say we'll stay with Mr. Fry, 1k years - you're genetic junk compared to the average human when they defrost you. If you're going for only a 4 year trip, what's that gonna be good for? The world is rather unlikely to change for the better in this time, but your bank account is certain to go downhill.

Admiral Wesley, on 1 Sep 2009, 1:23, said:

Also, this thread can double as a general discussion of the practice of cryogenic freezing. I heard that it's a popular practice for a guy to freeze his load so that he can impregnate females, even in death. Sperm banks. I think that's awesome, I can't wait 'till that becomes the only way for people to get pregnant, and safe sex becomes the norm, without any flimsy piece of shit condoms. Having your cake and eating it to, eh? (Crickets Chirp)

That's kinda missing an important part of the whole safer sex subject. Regardless, while in vitro fertilization might be convenient for males, it's not exactly a very pleasant process for women, so it's kinda unlikely to become the norm.

Admiral Wesley, on 1 Sep 2009, 1:23, said:

Also, I heard that EVERYTHING is stopped, so that means I may be chronologically 18, but look like a scummy little 13 year old, so I guess it ain't worth it.

Y'know, that's kind of the point of cryogenic conservation in the first place.

Admiral Wesley, on 1 Sep 2009, 2:11, said:

All right, and I was watching this history channel thing, and it was about eternal life, and it said that a good portion of the people alive today could be able to live forever by certain scientific B.S. I don't want to get into.

Guess that's why they're history channel. But it'd certainly be interesting if you could elaborate for the sake of discussion.

Dauth, on 1 Sep 2009, 8:48, said:

That and there's already significant betting that the first person to live to be 200 has already been born. So I wouldn't worry much about hitting 140-150, I'd worry about getting bored.

Some might argue that in order to live that long, you can't really live in the first place.

[Dauth]

Golan, on 1 Sep 2009, 14:40, said:

Dauth, on 1 Sep 2009, 8:48, said:

That and there's already significant betting that the first person to live to be 200 has already been born. So I wouldn't worry much about hitting 140-150, I'd worry about getting bored.

Some might argue that in order to live that long, you can't really live in the first place.

I quite agree, I fully expect a mid life crisis and an explosive death, seems more fun.

[Admiral Wesley]

Sure, I wanna live to 150, but I DO NOT want to turn into a wrinkly old prune! Will there be ways to stop the aging process AND extend life at the same time?

[Dauth]

Admiral Wesley, on 1 Sep 2009, 19:03, said:

Sure, I wanna live to 150, but I DO NOT want to turn into a wrinkly old prune! Will there be ways to stop the aging process AND extend life at the same time?

Botox not work for you?

[BeefJeRKy]

In a certain issue of BBC Focus, I read that around 90, a gene deactivates one's aging process. So at 100, your body is the same as it was at 90 or something of teh sort. If you could activate the gene at 25 maybe 30 years old, you would stop aging and probably live longer.

[Golan]

You still wouldn't be able to stop DNA degeneration though, which is a major problem and cause for aging. We aren't built to work indefinitely.

[Libains]

In aging, cell reproduction rates slow, and eventually stop. From there, you're on your own, and when something hasn't got the power to keep going, you're totally buggered. As to the reasons for aging, there are so many possible theories it's almost impossible to get an answer - one theory negates another, yet proves yet another - it's all exceptionally complicated and nobody knows the reason behind it at all. My rough opinion on the matter is not so much that we should be looking for the cause, but we should be looking at what it affects. This is in a similar fashion to stopping a catalytic reaction by removing the reactants, not by removing the catalyst. Theoretically, the body should continue to reproduce cells throughout time, however this is stopped by something or another. Imo, the aging boundary is from about 35 onwards - prior to that it is growth, after that it is deterioration. Of all the theories, the constructive-destructive nature of reproductive hormones appeals to me the most - beyond the age of about 35 the hormones become destructive to the system within and slowly tear it apart, causing all the visible signs of aging. The only other alternative is telomere shortening - a process which shortens the mitochondrial 'ends' in a cell - they reduce a fraction at a time as a response to the body's molceular clock, until they get to the point where they damage the DNA of cells. This reduces their lifespans, and thus that of the system's. If this were the case, an activation of the telomere gene in each individual cell would allow it to maintain it's telomere length for infinity - interestingly what cancer cells do to multiply so much. However, this is still just a theory, and even in early tests it doesn't seem to work properly. Thus, I would conclude that the body measures time by several clocks, and if one fails, and it's failsafe goes down (let's say telomeres) then the next one in line will keep the body aging (let's say reproductive hormones). I honestly don't think there will be any way to break out of our mortality within the confines of our body, essentially.

Something at the very beginning of time gave us mortality to force us to accept that we will all die - if we never die then what motivation is there to make something of yourself? Frankly, while death is a horrible prospect, it inspires people to make something of their time, they can't put things off for 100 years for the sheer hell of it.

However, I don't believe the main factor in death or old age is much to do with genes or DNA anymore. Once our generation reaches the ages of 50-60, I would suggest that we'll start dropping like flies. We abuse our bodies consistently, and frankly lifespans won't get longer when people off themselves indirectly. With all the best will in the world, we need to look at reaching our potential age before we look at increasing that one - preventing aging will not prevent cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, Huntingdons, or any other potentially lethal disease. Why find a cure for seomthing that likely isn't going to happen to most?

And finally, back on topic:
Cryogenics is a un-tried idea. We have assumed we can re-awaken the dead if they are preserved, but we don't know how. What is worse though, is that we don't know if we're actually using the right things to keep people in stasis. Once it's proven, then I'd consider it, if I were in your shoes. As it is, we could easily see 10% of the world's population frozen - would lead to a pretty poor existence when all of the people that we entrust to be the inventors, tycoons, entrepeneurs, thinkers, etc, decide to be frozen for 500 years. I submit to you that if cryogenics is indeed proven, the world's technological advancement will slow almost overnight.

[HotSoup]

Admiral Wesley, on 31 Aug 2009, 20:23, said:

Hey,

I was wondering if there was a place where I could actually be cryogenically frozen and brought back after a time. Like Fry on Futurama, but not accidentally. I want to wake up the day I turn 18, which would be February 22, 2014. I heard there was a lab in Arizona.

Also, this thread can double as a general discussion of the practice of cryogenic freezing. I heard that it's a popular practice for a guy to freeze his load so that he can impregnate females, even in death. Sperm banks. I think that's awesome, I can't wait 'till that becomes the only way for people to get pregnant, and safe sex becomes the norm, without any flimsy piece of shit condoms. Having your cake and eating it to, eh? (Crickets Chirp)

A. You'd die. Your blood would be gone. You're buggered completely. As AJ said, its completely untried. No one knows what can happen, and nothing has really been done to advance the science by any significant degree in a long while.

B. You at the age of 13 couldn't afford it to begin with.

C. You'd still be 13, biologically. I'm sorry, just because your birth certificate says 18 doesn't mean they are going to let someone who hasn't had their balls drop vote and drive. Maturity comes from experience, not actual age. And you would be an 18 yearold without a day of High School. Harsh.

D. Your life isn't that bad that you want to skip to 18. Suck it up, kid. There are people who would kill to be 13 again. Don't waste your childhood. YOu don't have much of it left. You don't have any major problems at age 13 unless you live in Africa, as an AK-kid. With AIDS. And Maliria.

E. TV shows on Discovery and like are very optimistic and generally about/based on unconfirmed theories and future science. The reason its future is that we can't do it yet.

F. So you want to have everyone jizz in a jar, then sterilize themselves, because thats what you are implying. Are you fucking insane?

G. Did you seriously reference a cartoon in a scientific discussion?

Scope, on 1 Sep 2009, 15:26, said:

In a certain issue of BBC Focus, I read that around 90, a gene deactivates one's aging process. So at 100, your body is the same as it was at 90 or something of teh sort. If you could activate the gene at 25 maybe 30 years old, you would stop aging and probably live longer.

The commonly excepted cause(or main cause) of aging is the degeneration of DNA in cells as they constantly replicate. There is no "age gene" we can just turn off and be perfectly fine. The cells just slowly break down. While there could be genes that do this on a small scale, perhaps a evolutionary trait to stop overpopulation, it isn't a main cause and there is no major scientific basis for such an idea.

Edited by HotSoup, 01 September 2009 - 23:37.

[Masonicon]

Life Extension technologies and immortality related technologies has gone beyond crude cryogenics

Edited by Masonicon, 04 February 2010 - 11:12.

[Jok3r]

A. No they haven't.
B. Massive thread necro.

[Libains]

Indeed they haven't, and indeed it is. However, I'll leave the topic open as it is quite an interesting topic and if it progresses further I'm not going to complain.