The comments suggesting that this is unimportant are pretty silly. People have been objecting to cryonics on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to preserve fine structure, versus only having had a reasonable set of evidence to preserve fine structure. They have objected on the basis that proven methods of preservation in small scale tissue samples hadn't been rigorously demonstrated to work in large organs. Now that the fine structure and scaling doubts are dispelled, they move on to objecting for other reasons, and even suggest that it was obvious in hindsight that the fine structure was preserved, or that methods would scale.
Denying that cryonics is relevant or useful or a valid area of research and development because no-one has yet completely implemented the full loop of technologies for reversible full body cryopreservation is missing the point. (But note that it has been done for a single organ, which was transplanted, and functioned).
The point is that we could be saving lives, and we are not, largely because of irrational objections that are not really based on technological or scientific positions, but grasp at a those positions as a shield for the real nebulous feelings on the matter.
The reversal of cryonics in the future has been written on extensively. There are very detailed treatments of what would be required. There is no sound reason to think it impossible; it's just a matter of sufficient control over chemistry and biochemistry. If you believe that there is some sound reason that it is impossible, then publish a paper - it would be influential if correct, because it would demolish the work of much of the cryobiology community in their initiatives to create reversible cryopreservation of organs and tissues.
Here is the paper for this research by 21st Century Medicine: "Aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation":
Cryopreservationist walks into a bar. Goes 'Hey, everybody, pay me $50 and I'll show you a fantastic trick, I take your watch, put it in a bag, smash it up with a hammer, then open the bag and out comes your watch'. Fascinated a number of patrons sign up and pay their $50, hand over their watches.
Audible gulps as the watches go into a nice silver velvety bag and a very large hammer smashes down on the bag with the bar serving as temporary anvil.
The bag with the remains of the watches gets carefully pocketed and some of the money goes towards ordering a round of drinks for everybody.
So, how about my watch, asks one of the people that handed over his watch and his money. "Oh, that's the hard part, I haven't really studied that yet, come back in a few 100 years and I might have your watch again. But I'm getting better at smashing watches, that's for sure."
> The point is that we could be saving lives, and we are not, largely because of irrational objections that are not really based on technological or scientific positions, but grasp at a those positions as a shield for the real nebulous feelings on the matter.
What makes you believe that we could be saving lives?
This analogy makes little sense. Nature is the man with the hammer. After you die he smashes your brain to bits. There is nothing left. You cease to exist forever.
Cryopreservation is an attempt to stop the man with the hammer. By preserving your brain, you give yourself a chance that you can be revived, if technology advances that far. Which certainly seems very likely.
It is a tragedy that the majority of people who die are not cryopreserved. It's absolutely silly. Even if there is only a small chance it will work, it is still absolutely worth doing.
> The bag with the remains of the watches gets carefully pocketed and some of the money goes towards ordering a round of drinks for everybody.
I might have misunderstood this bit (in which case, oops). I see way too many people making the assumption that cryonics is somehow primarily profit motivated. Taking money out of the cryonics trust to "buy drinks" would potentially cost the lives of patients, as the organization must remain stable in addition to the revival being achievable to begin with. The incentive is towards long term savings.
> So, how about my watch, asks one of the people that handed over his watch and his money. "Oh, that's the hard part, I haven't really studied that yet, come back in a few 100 years and I might have your watch again. But I'm getting better at smashing watches, that's for sure."
This analogy doesn't make much sense to me. Cryonics is about trying to prevent something that will inevitably be smashed from being smashed as badly. Saying cryonics is about smashing things is like saying seat belts are about cars crashing into each other.
Denying that cryonics is relevant or useful or a valid area of research and development because no-one has yet completely implemented the full loop of technologies for reversible full body cryopreservation is missing the point. (But note that it has been done for a single organ, which was transplanted, and functioned).
The point is that we could be saving lives, and we are not, largely because of irrational objections that are not really based on technological or scientific positions, but grasp at a those positions as a shield for the real nebulous feelings on the matter.
The reversal of cryonics in the future has been written on extensively. There are very detailed treatments of what would be required. There is no sound reason to think it impossible; it's just a matter of sufficient control over chemistry and biochemistry. If you believe that there is some sound reason that it is impossible, then publish a paper - it would be influential if correct, because it would demolish the work of much of the cryobiology community in their initiatives to create reversible cryopreservation of organs and tissues.
Here is the paper for this research by 21st Century Medicine: "Aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation":
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2015.09.003