Would you consider cryopreservation? If so then why and for how much time?

Would you consider cryopreservation? If so then why and for how much time?

Pic kind of related

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=benzXbi4zu4
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18080461
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781087/
youtu.be/_MJc2JiWtww
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

already frozen brb 1000 years

Until something interesting happened
Winter Soldier me fam

medfag

cryopreservation doesn't work. The problem with ice is that cristalizes and kills tissue, killing you in the process. Human species isn't suitable for cryo, there are other species that can do it, but not human.

However, research is advancing, there's some cryo improvement going on, but still, nothing definitive, I'd say give it 10-20 years, but right now it's a no brainer, just don't suicide yourself with ice

>cryopreservation doesn't work

then how come it has before

it never did

Let's see some proof of that claim

Or you could provide the proof that it did happen. We look forward to it.

Futurama doesn't count

youtube.com/watch?v=benzXbi4zu4

fair enough, I'll give you evidence

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18080461
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781087/

As I said, it can be done, just not right now. Give it 10-20 years and it will be viable, but right now it just kills the patient

Totally not Soros-funded propaganda. Got anything credible?

Not sure why you quoted me, I was responding to the user who said it did happen.

well.. if you believe the US National Library of Medicine isn't credible, and the methodological analysis isn't enough, I don't know what is up to your gold-standart

I just wanted to share with you the evidence, I'm sure you can find it interesting. I'm aware if your intentions, and I thank you

I'm just copying from the article, a it seems that you didn't even read it:

"Closing thoughts:

Cell-based applications in cell therapy, regenerative and reparative medicine, biobanking and tissue engineering are now focusing on normal, predictable and timely return to function of the cells after cryopreservation. This is often not achieved with today's technologies and approaches. In order to address this issue, continued improvement in cryopreservation outcome will rely on the integration of cellular biology, molecular biology, biophysics, engineering and cryobiology. Furthermore, with the growing body of evidence suggesting that CPAs, such as DMSO, affect the cellular, proteome, genome and structures such as the mitochondria, the cell membrane and nucleus, it is obvious that successful preservation requires new strategies for the new definitions of success.

Traditionally, cryopreservation developments focused on structural preservation of cells through the inclusion of penetrating cryoprotectants and the management of ice and chemo-osmotic perturbations. New strategies improved preservation outcome through alteration of preservation solution to mitigate some of the detrimental effects of stress that contribute to the post-thaw launch of apoptotic and necrotic cell death cascades. The literature base utilizing the integrated approach to understanding and developing new approaches for preservation grows slowly. Current studies are now focused on linking the “management” of gene regulated stress dependent effects on a cell with the traditional cryopreservation approaches. In combination cell cryopreservation outcome will doubtlessly improve to meet the increased needs in biomedical applications."

Try reading before posting. Try thinking for yourself too.

sciencefag here

If you freeze it fast enough, the crystallization doesn't happen.

If folks in the future even decided to wake me, I'd be an effective sideshow at best. Likely unable to speak their language, and given to cultural norms they would consider abhorrent. Assuming they could immunize me to their diseases, and themselves to any of mine which might survive the process.

Really, though, to think our body might survive intact, in such a way, is kinda crazy. So any revival would kinda hit hard against the philosophical problem of personal identity.

please read the articles I've posted, if you understand science then you'll understand why cryo doesn't work right now. I'm not saying it can't work ever, I'm saying it doesn't work right now.

Just read the articles, it's all there

I know why it can't happen today. But the crystallization, if you ignore the huge body you gotta somehow cool, should not be a problem, if you fix the ignored problem.

define interesting
the company you're hosted by went bankrupt, thats pretty interesting

that is true, the freezing itself isn't a problem as it's been sosrted out

is the homeostasis problem what makes it not viable, specially involving osmosis, membranes and solute/energy conservation

>brainfart

Cant you just dehydrate before you freeze?

About 60% of the human body is water, and reducing that significantly means cell death, and just death. I mean, you could freeze a mummy, but I don't know where that gets you.

It's just a fancy way of getting buried, except the energy preserved in your corpse won't be as efficiently returned into circulation. There is no way to pause/kill all life functions and then jump-start it later. That's not how anything of it works.

Accepting death through whatever means one finds fit is the only way to beat it. I've heard a lot of good about LSD therapies for beating the fear of death.

Yes. I'm curious about the future. For how much time? As soon as my consciousness can be transferred into a transhuman construct. I'd like a body that can be quickly maintained and upgraded.

"Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not." -Epicurus

it might be sooner than you think, maybe in 15-25 years body enhancement will be a reality
robotics are making an impact right now in medicine, bionic orthopedics are starting to become a thing, understanding of the CNS will make it possible

You forget about how people with money buy political figures to get in the way of any progress and rile up the public with faux morality arguments. Cloning technology, leads the way to regrowing limbs, organs, super-bolstering physical immunities by causing cells to super-replicate or simply reversing cancer. People with money invested in cancer and other illness treatments say "Crap, we won't milk them for everything they have and put their family in debt while they die." Faux morality argument "Mad scientists will create clone slaves, soulless clones, and grow bodies for body parts. Down with it!" End result, cloning technology to a screeching halt. So, money & morality link to transhuman "People are no longer going to be in debt to us, stop them" and "The singularity! Plus AI's are godless and soulless."

well, as a future scientist, I preffer to see it ith optimism, I believe in the capacity of the human species to overcome the inner devil

It is true that there are bad politicians and institutions, that get in the way of the common good. But there's also good politicians, and institutions that fight for the common good

No because science is not advanced enough to cryo freez people without killing them and I wouldn't want to any ways since I love my life.

This video shows a guy actually thinking of freezing himself and he talks to actual company's which freeze people. I think it is possible to be brought back.

youtu.be/_MJc2JiWtww

>I love my life.
I don't believe you

I think science funding is cut less dramatically. Folks simply decide that science grants are a waste of taxpayer money, and universities are over-funded and unnecessary, in their current form, given they just brainwash children.

We need to return to proper values, where everyone adopts the ways of their parents, and their church. We can then live moral lives in harmony.

I'm not saying it won't happen. All I'm saying is that money and power will always be in the way of science and progress until said money and power can get ahead of, profit in and control it. Until that dynamic stops (people stop being human beings), technology will only progress at a relatively sluggish pace. I mean, seriously, we are still using internal combustion engines as our primary transport and we morally oppose inhibiting more and more power grabs by those who have all the power. We also morally oppose education being more important to though inspiring if it conflicts with religion.
This reply proves me right:

In fact, scientific advancement is strongly correlated to economic growth. The Dutch dominated global trade in late medieval time because of the scientific investmente they did in agricultural and navigation science, creating over time the east india company

when industry kicked in, england was the most scientific advanced nation in the world, making it the overseas colonial empire

during XX century science was more important than ever, even small leads in scientific development made huge improvements in economics and demographic growth, specially in medicine and pharmacology, engineering (cars) and communications (telephony/television/internet)

Nowadays, science is the foundation of our society, and the most profitable economic factor

well, I missunderstood your point. I believe you are right, it's been happening during the entire human history. But still, science has managed it, more or less. I believe this is changing slowly, as science is being better understood and a scientific love is beginning to spread among advanced societies

At a slow, but steady pace, you'll see un 10 years or so a growth in science, due to the revolution in robotics, the space exploration and medicine/genetics

I don't know where you live in, but in my country there's no problem with religion. In fact, atheism is very much the majority of the believe system. About politicians, it can be solved with a good effort in education, as democratic systems fail misserably with uneducated populations

when I croak,green frogs can ribbit the star spangled banner
riddip!

Yeah, came across that too when I was ~13ish. Doesn't cut it for me though. Not the thought that "before you were born, you had not excited for millions of years already and there was no trauma from it, dying is no different" either.

Personally I fear exactly that, meaninglessness. It's really unsettling. Wouldn't want to live so there was no death and existence was infinite, for then there would be no reason to do anything because there would always be a tomorrow to postpone it to. At the same time knowing I and everything about me will one day fade away and there will be nothing left of it feels just really unsettling too.