I was wondering why there isn’t more talk of cryogenics in a forum such as this. I’m sure there are plenty of topics related to cryogenics both directly and indirectly that very relevant to the topics that are generally discussed in this forum. Let’s not let good minds go to waste.
Huh?
I really don’t see the connection between Austrian Economics and preserving a dead body by freezing it in liquid nitrogen.
Or, as Six would say, death is what defines us as a living being.
We could always talk about the property rights involved in cryonics. How exactly would someone contract with another individual in order to, let’s say, acquire his property upon reanimation?
I support the right of Cryogenics businesses to exist but right now it seems to be along the same level of scientific validity as mumification was in ancient Egypt. We assume that “frozen” means preserved for later use just as the Pharoes thought that making human jerky out of themselves would lead to an enjoyable afterlife.
Of course I want to be cryogenically frozen …but I am not deluded into thinking I can come alive later by doing it but I want to do it so I can freak people out years from now and have them speculate on curses, me getting up and shambling around on a quest for some 21st century object like a Blackberry.
I want to inspire the campiness of future generations.
I don’t see the sense in cryogenics now, honestly.
“Those who fight for the future live in it today”; not “those who fight for the future freeze themselves & wait for the future to come to them while being at the mercy of external forces beyond their ability to cope with while they are frozen in time.”
You are right though that a discussion could be conducted around cryogenics, though. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if it was already covered elsewhere.
You would leave your property in the care of a trustee, with resumption of full ownership upon your re-animation. Of course, since the science of this is extremely questionable, I doubt you’d find anybody willing to take on the trust.
The more interesting discussion is how the courts would treat the property, once it’s clear you’re nothing more than a mass of frozen protoplasm. I think the trust agreement would be declared null and void, and the property treated in the manner of a death.
Which leads to another thought: I wonder if a contract to maintain your frozen popsicle body is even enforceable.
All the guys who wanted to talk about cryogenics have been frozen and put into orbit until 2150. Maybe you could leave them a list of topics for when they de-thaw. [:D]
There could be some way to preserve the body in a favorable legal setting that helps lessen the risk of the corpse not making it to an attempted reanimation.
To get there, you have to demonstrate viable science, not just speculation that at some time in the future science will advance to the point of being able to re-animate frozen bodies. It would be like me getting an injunction from anybody selling my house after I die because my disembodied spirit will still lurk there and have rights of possession. This is entirely speculative, and courts are going to defer to the apparently real: that I am dead and buried and the living have a greater claim.
“To get there, you have to demonstrate viable science, not just speculation that at some time in the future science will advance to the point of being able to re-animate frozen bodies.”
Why must one “demonstrate viable science?” And to what standsards should they be demonstrable? Is demonstration necessary if certain contractual arrangements could be made that would preserve the body in a more favorable legal setting?
“It would be like me getting an injunction from anybody selling my house after I die because my disembodied spirit will still lurk there and have rights of possession.”
Does this “injunction” have to take place AFTER you die? And who first mentioned anything about disembodied spirits lurking around and having rights of possession?
“This is entirely speculative, and courts are going to defer to the apparently real: that I am dead and buried and the living have a greater claim.”
If there are contractual obligations to meet, what does “speculation” have to do with anything? What do the living have a greater claim to? If the corpse is owned by someone who wishes to keep it, then where is the problem?
You can have the fanciest, most complex contract in the world but without a living, breathing plaintiff it’s just paper. The dead have no rights. They can’t give testimony, they can’t satisfy a judgment, etc. Now, you may very well find someone willing to safeguard your frozen corpsicle but if he runs out of money or gets tired of lugging you around, then your corpsicle is SOL.
“You can have the fanciest, most complex contract in the world but without a living, breathing plaintiff it’s just paper.”
Ok, but I thought that was obvious. What I’m interested in is how a body could be owned in a manner that would help legally assure safekeeping to what extent it is possible, e.g., how one comes to acquire the ownership of the remans of our unfortunate individual, owning shares in a “corpsicle” [:D], and/or a company might hold the remains while other parties retain certain rights and/or how other parties may transfer those rights, etc.
“The dead have no rights. They can’t give testimony, they can’t satisfy a judgment, etc. Now, you may very well find someone willing to safeguard your frozen corpsicle but if he runs out of money or gets tired of lugging you around, then your corpsicle is SOL.”"
Sure, it is possible that the remains could end up in a situation that would be unfavorable to safekeeping. That is one of the risks involved in investing in such an endeavor. Then again, I don’t think anyone here is willing to assert that it would be impossible for such an investment to pay off somehow in the end, given the proper circumstances. If so, I would love to hear it.
Here is the fundamental problem: the frozen body is chattel under current jurisprudence. It has no rights other than the current owner’s right to do pretty much whatever he wants with it. So again, you may find an altruistic person or group of people to safeguard the corpse from generation to generation, but if somebody along the line decides the mass of frozen hamburger meat is too much of a hassle, then the corpse has no legal recourse because it is not a legal person.
You could start your own country and pass a law that says corpses have legal rights and the government or some other perpetual agency has standing to sue to require preservation. However, there would be little incentive to enforce such a law for the reasons which follow.
A person could pledge his future labor to someone in exchange for their bearing the cost of keeping his body in deep-freeze. However, the investor would have to be assured of the viability of the technology. As things presently stand, there is no foreseeable way to reanimate frozen cells and hence, the expense of maintaining corpses in deep freeze is borne solely by people with enough disposable income to engage in this purely altruistic endeavour.
The whole point is that they’re not dead.
Prove it.
Prove that they’re not dead? First define “dead”. People have fallen into frozen lakes, been submerged for an hour or more, and been revived with no ill effects. Hence the saying “he’s not dead until he’s warm and dead”. Would you say he’s dead when he’s pulled out of the lake? Then what, he’s resurrected at the hospital? Other organs can be “frozen” (actually, that’s a misnomer - they don’t freeze, they’re vitrified) and stored indefinitely without damage - why is it difficult to believe that the same can be done with a brain? Unfreezing it presents something of a problem at the moment, sure, especially since it can only be done with individual organs, not the entire body as a unit, so it can’t be kept alive if thawed, but there’s no question that the brain is not actually dead (i.e., irretrievable) as long as it remains frozen.
Again, you are going to have to prove that the brain’s synaptic processes are in a suspended state as opposed to the cells being irreparably killed by freezing. Since you can’t prove that other than by resort to speculation, a court has no reason to grant a frozen corpse rights that the living have to honor.
Why would they killed by “freezing”? The cells of other organs aren’t killed by freezing. Is there some reason to think brain cells should be different? You can certainly look at samples under an electron microscope and see that they aren’t badly damaged, etc.
(And since when do courts grant rights anyway?)
Because when organs get cold enough, you die. The metabolic processes of the cells stop. The synapses stop firing. You don’t respond to external stimuli.
Clarification: courts recognize rights. In the battle between the guy who’s now having second thoughts about lugging your corpse around and your cold, stiff frame, the living are going to win unless you can prove by something other than speculation that you can be re-animated.
[Favoriting this thread.]
Sure…like the guy in the frozen lake…who can be warmed up and go on living - so was he alive or dead when he was in the water? I guess you say he was dead, but then death isn’t necessarily fatal [:)]
Not “corpse”, just “head”. You can get your whole body frozen if you prefer, but there’s very little chance of that being reversible; single organs (i.e., just your brain - they leave it in the skull for protection) can be done with little or no damage.