As absurd as cryonics sounds, without fanatics (as some might call them) pushing for it, it will never exist.
"If you don't ask, then the answer is always no."
Hopefully we'll see you again some day, Ettinger.
"If you don't ask, then the answer is always no."
Hopefully we'll see you again some day, Ettinger.
I think that eventually we'll probably figure this stuff out, but that now is far too early to start freezing people.
Why, do you think there's something to lose?
Our best shot at preserving the pattern of information that makes your identity as a person, or just rotting/reduced to ashes.
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3...
Very technical, but gives a good idea of what is required.
Or to put in another way, what is more likely: That the future can bring back a dead old and then frozen brain, or that they can reconstruct an individual just by brute force computer simulation, no need for anyone to be frozen?
If the later is as likely as the first, what exactly is the point of freezing?
Perhaps you might be better of trying to create interesting things which will make the distant future more likely to want to simulate you in high precision?
Or perhaps Aubrey DeGray would be much better off applying his impressive brains to getting an MD and going into basic research, instead of being a cheerleader for his ideas with only a Gerontology PhD.
I suggest you read his book (amazon: Ending Aging) and then make up your mind about his ideas, rather than after having only heard the soundbites.
If you are passionate about the subject, step out of the Aubrey lake and dive into the huge ocean that is next to it. It's not nearly as optimistic, but is much more relevant.
So lets stick to fundamentals. His basic argument: ... the fundamental knowledge needed to develop effective anti-aging medicine mostly already exists, and that the science is ahead of the funding.
In other words, big pharma with all its money and all those huge profits coming form treating age related diseases, is just not interested in spending more to develop more such drugs? I mean the cure for agings is just sitting there, and all they have to do is put a few people to work on it, but nope, not interested.
All those scientists can't see the forest for the trees, but Aubrey does see it!
Does this give you any kind of a pause? I mean, sure he might be the visionary of our age, but how likely is that?
Imagine this was about algorithms. And someone claimed the basic theory to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time already exits, someone just needs to implement the algorithms. Would that person be taken seriously?
Does it not bother you at all that so many in the tech community are a buzz with his theories, but the life sciences community not so much? What's keeping Craig Venter from curing aging in a couple of weeks? Pro-aging and pro-death bias?
That is another one of Aubrey's claims, that a lot of his opponents are just hypnotized by our pro-aging and pro-death Stockholm syndrome culture.
Let me ask you this, can you provide me with specific evidence that Aubrey's main theories are NOT pure charlatanry?
Because the generic "We can like totally to do this, if we just try guys!" is not even wrong.
More likely to happen if they have a frozen brain to scan?