How would a revolution affect... cryonics?

[DataPacRat]

I tend to learn better when I have some concrete examples I can refer to; so I'm hoping that if you're reading this, you can tell me how your view of a leftist revolution would affect the proceedings.

A lot of people have the impression that only rich people can afford to be cryonically preserved. This is far from the truth - depending on your particular arrangements, the total cost can be roughly $300 per year. About half of that is dues to the cryonics organization, to help pay for rent, utilities, maintenance, liquid nitrogen, and other continuing expenses. The other half pays for the premiums of a life insurance policy, whose payout covers the one-time expenses of preservation.

Regardless of how faint the hope of eventual revival might be, or whether such a group should be considered a club, a graveyard, a research institution, a religion, a mutual-assistance society, or just a rather expensive and complicated set of funeral arrangements... the above description relies on certain economic assumptions, such as a group being able to own the building holding the cryostats; that it's possible to buy life insurance; that money itself continues to exist. Depending on the particulars of any theorized revolution, some to all of these assumptions might be overturned.

Assuming that the main goal of members of cryonics organizations are to continue to keep cryo-preserved people preserved, and to continue to cryo-preserve their members as necessary... what changes would have to be made to continue doing so, come the revolution and the establishment of a non-capitalistic economy?

[Red Economist]

Assuming that the main goal of members of cryonics organizations are to continue to keep cryo-preserved people preserved, and to continue to cryo-preserve their members as necessary... what changes would have to be made to continue doing so, come the revolution and the establishment of a non-capitalistic economy?

Revolutions change the social relations within a society and usually leave it's science and technology undisturbed (in the short run- the new society affects the direction of these in the end).

The Cryonics organization and it's property would become the property of the state or a non-hierarchical organization in a communist revolution.
If a revolution was egalitarian- it would become a question as to whether the society considered that people had the 'right' to be cryogenically preserved (most probably in terms of whether it is a useful way to handle resources). The main question becomes if Cryonics is purely for the rich of the previous ruling class (in which case the technology would be sidelined) or to the poor (in which case it would be used on mass).

A revolutionary society would have to consider cryonics from it's own ideological perspective which would contrast with ours. Physical immortality may be seen as an illusion of the old society, but could become mainstream as a new science of over-coming human mortality.

Personally, I'm suspicious of ideas of immortality because it is so closely related to religion, conceptions of the soul and consequently the belief that mind is separate from the body (I think the mind and brain are theoretically indistinguishable). But I don't know any scientific objections to the idea.

It could be like that Episode from Star trek in which a stock broker wakes up and discovers there is no such thing as money any more. :grin:

[DataPacRat]

Thank you /very/ much for your clear and carefully-considered reply. :)

I do have a few follow-up questions on some of the points you mention:


Revolutions change the social relations within a society and usually leave it's science and technology undisturbed (in the short run- the new society affects the direction of these in the end).

The Cryonics organization and it's property would become the property of the state or a non-hierarchical organization in a communist revolution.

By 'non-hierarchical organization', do you mean some body that is created by the state to take care of such matters (a 'People's Council for Funeral Practices'), or are you more referring to revolutions that result in a stateless society (in which case, I have little idea what sort of organization you're describing)?



If a revolution was egalitarian- it would become a question as to whether the society considered that people had the 'right' to be cryogenically preserved (most probably in terms of whether it is a useful way to handle resources). The main question becomes if Cryonics is purely for the rich of the previous ruling class (in which case the technology would be sidelined) or to the poor (in which case it would be used on mass). Knowing what I do about cryonics, I think I can narrow this down somewhat.

Some people who sign up for cryonics are rich; some are middle-class; some are poor. I know of several cryonicists who have no income other than disability checks; I know of cases where terminally ill people who wished to be cryonically preserved but did not have the funds had the funds raised for them via charitable donations. The whole matter doesn't seem to fit very well into a ruling-class/poor divide. Out of the entire population of Earth, only about 2,000 people are currently signed up to be cryo-preserved when they die, and about 200 have been so preserved. I'm not sure what it would mean for it to be used en masse - nearly everyone on Earth simply doesn't /want/ to use cryonics when they die, and the existing facilities are sufficient for the number who do.

There is one aspect of present-day cryonics which seems likely to be affected by looking at it from this perspective - and that's how the current cryo organizations are, well, organized. There are two main providers of cryonics services, each with about half of existing cryonicists (with several up-and-coming groups who have yet to establish themselves). One group is run by a board whose members are self-selecting, and are not elected by the group's members as a whole. The other group has a board whose members are elected from the membership as a whole, by the membership as a whole. Would that be sufficient difference for the one group to be forced to change its proceedings - or even be dissolved - while the other is allowed to continue something approaching business as usual?

Is there anything that either group could do to nudge the odds in favor of a future revolution allowing them to care for their cryo-preserved members unmolested?




A revolutionary society would have to consider cryonics from it's own ideological perspective which would contrast with ours. Physical immortality may be seen as an illusion of the old society, but could become mainstream as a new science of over-coming human mortality. One cute analogy for cryonics I've read is "a leaky lifeboat into the future" - or, put another way, it could be viewed as an extreme version of placing someone into a medically-induced coma in order to prevent further deterioration while other measures are made ready.

Which forms of revolutionary societies are positively-inclined towards people trying to make better lives for themselves in non-mainstream ways; or at least towards using medical research to stave off death for a few more years? Which forms would dislike such approaches?



Personally, I'm suspicious of ideas of immortality because it is so closely related to religion, conceptions of the soul and consequently the belief that mind is separate from the body (I think the mind and brain are theoretically indistinguishable). But I don't know any scientific objections to the idea. Feel free to think of cryonics not as a shot for immortality (especially since we're not yet sure of which direction the universe will take after a few more quadrillion years), but at potential life-extension for people unlucky enough to live before medical science advances very far.


As for my own perspective on immortality, it's closely tied to my perspective on individuality, which is extremely non-mainstream. I've got a relevant line in my quotefile, which seems just long enough to mention without derailing this thread too much:
"But I am not an object. I am not a noun, I am an adjective. I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a John K Clark-ish way. At the present time only one chunk of matter in the universe behaves that way; someday that could change." -- John K Clark




It could be like that Episode from Star trek in which a stock broker wakes up and discovers there is no such thing as money any more. :grin:I think playing "What'll things be like when I wake?" is a game all cryonicists play. :) I peg the odds of a leftist revolution to be at least on the same order-of-magnitude as the odds of being successfully reanimated from cryo-preservation, if not higher, so it seems worth considering the possibility.


As a final question... for a minor fee, at least one of the cryonics organizations allows its members to purchase the use of one or more file-cabinet drawers, whose contents will be kept safely stored along with their body until their re-animation. (With the exception that intrinsically valuable items (such as gold bars) aren't allowed, to ensure there'll be no reason for future criminals to try robbing the place.) Sort of a personal time capsule. Some people place personal possessions therein; some a photo album, or private documents; I've made arrangements for my personal digital library to be placed on long-term-storage media. (My nom de net wasn't chosen arbitrarily, after all. :) ) If you eventually end up being one of the people in charge of figuring out what to do with all those weird cryonics people... is there anything I could put in my drawer that would help convince you to let us keep us doing our thing, or even to increase funding (or the equivalent) for cryo-biological research?

[Red Economist]

By 'non-hierarchical organization', do you mean some body that is created by the state to take care of such matters (a 'People's Council for Funeral Practices'), or are you more referring to revolutions that result in a stateless society (in which case, I have little idea what sort of organization you're describing)?

A Stateless non-hierarchical society. I don't quite know what it would look like either as most of human history doesn't run this way- but the Russian Soviets and Factory committee are the best example that comes to mind.


One group is run by a board whose members are self-selecting, and are not elected by the group's members as a whole. The other group has a board whose members are elected from the membership as a whole, by the membership as a whole. Would that be sufficient difference for the one group to be forced to change its proceedings - or even be dissolved - while the other is allowed to continue something approaching business as usual?

Is there anything that either group could do to nudge the odds in favor of a future revolution allowing them to care for their cryo-preserved members unmolested?

Be democratically elected. The Russian Revolution had it's democratic phase when the whole population wanted to change things and then it into a really authoritarian system with a 'democratic facade'. But it's kind of 3/4 chance of working; lenin re-introduced 'one-man management systems' in 1918 when it became clear the factory committees weren't working.


Which forms of revolutionary societies are positively-inclined towards people trying to make better lives for themselves in non-mainstream ways; or at least towards using medical research to stave off death for a few more years? Which forms would dislike such approaches?

Accepting diversity and non-conformity means it would have to be Democratic- relatively stateless ones. Science in the USSR was strictly controlled by the state. In the 1920's they had a eugenics and genetics movement, but this was stamped out because it was considered 'fascist'. There is a similar story of political intervention in other scientific areas.

UNLESS Cryonics became mainstream; in which case an authoritarian system would just except it. (it's up to you).


As for my own perspective on immortality, it's closely tied to my perspective on individuality, which is extremely non-mainstream. I've got a relevant line in my quotefile, which seems just long enough to mention without derailing this thread too much:
"But I am not an object. I am not a noun, I am an adjective. I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a John K Clark-ish way. At the present time only one chunk of matter in the universe behaves that way; someday that could change." -- John K Clark

I wouldn't take this view, but I do understand it. I am pretty collectivistic and think of 'individuality' as the result of environmentally driven 'accidents' that happen to people simply because we all physically separate; and hence take a unique path through life. Communism will make people more 'similar', but it is both impossible and undesirable to eliminate 'individuality' as it matters at a psychological level and is therefore essential for people to be 'free'. There can only ever be one John K Clark in the whole of human history. And society is pretty dull if everyone is the same.


I think playing "What'll things be like when I wake?" is a game all cryonicists play. :) I peg the odds of a leftist revolution to be at least on the same order-of-magnitude as the odds of being successfully reanimated from cryo-preservation, if not higher, so it seems worth considering the possibility.

I got into thinking about communism because I had an interest in time travel; so I completely understand that "what''ll things be like when I wake up?" game. IT'S SO FUN!!!!
I've gone beyond the point of thinking it's a philosophical impossibility and it's mere a question of what kind of science and technologies would make it feasible to work. but we'll have to wait and see.


If you eventually end up being one of the people in charge of figuring out what to do with all those weird cryonics people... is there anything I could put in my drawer that would help convince you to let us keep us doing our thing, or even to increase funding (or the equivalent) for cryo-biological research?

I'm flattered. :grin:

In truth, the best thing is just keep going; talk about cryonics, bring it up in conversation and make an effort by pushing it further into the mainstream and getting people to think it's an option.
Revolutionaries are crazy, the whole lot of them! and they have an amazing love of the 'odd', the 'weird' and down right' 'insane' because being rebellious is how we discover our individuality. Even the authoritarian ones have a rebellious streak. We just unfortunately go about it in a potentially destructive way.

Lack of empathy is any revolutionaries main moral failing so a photo album is the best idea; It's important to remember that people who are cryogenically frozen are still people with individuality who can never be replaced and therefore have a 'right' to walk the earth- no matter how long they've waited. :)

[helot]

It's preservation in the way taxidermy is preservation. You're not gonna get 'thawed out' because you'd be dead and you'd remain that way. It's snake oil.




It's important to remember that people who are cryogenically frozen are still people with individuality who can never be replaced and therefore have a 'right' to walk the earth- no matter how long they've waited. :)


Only the living have a right to walk the earth.

[Slavic]

It's preservation in the way taxidermy is preservation. You're not gonna get 'thawed out' because you'd be dead and you'd remain that way. It's snake oil.

It wasn't to long ago were the idea of growing human tissue inside of a lab would be seen as science fiction and some sort of snake oil


Only the living have a right to walk the earth.

That is a very odd statement. If a man is brought back to life through medical treatment, is he not living?

[DataPacRat]

A Stateless non-hierarchical society. I don't quite know what it would look like either as most of human history doesn't run this way- but the Russian Soviets and Factory committee are the best example that comes to mind.

Hm... can you recommend any references about how those groups dealt with religious minorities, with relatively uncommon rites and practices?



Be democratically elected.

...

Accepting diversity and non-conformity means it would have to be Democratic- relatively stateless ones.

I can work with that.



UNLESS Cryonics became mainstream; in which case an authoritarian system would just except it. (it's up to you).

I think that it's unlikely cryonics is going to become mainstream until the first cryo-preserved individual is reanimated - which could as easily be decades after a revolution as before.



Lack of empathy is any revolutionaries main moral failing so a photo album is the best idea; It's important to remember that people who are cryogenically frozen are still people with individuality who can never be replaced and therefore have a 'right' to walk the earth- no matter how long they've waited.

Hrm... as a self-proclaimed urban hermit, I simply don't have a very good self-portrait gallery. (In fact, I'd be surprised if there's a single public photo of me online.) I'm better at working with words than pictures - but words, however well-crafted, take a certain amount of effort to absorb, while pictures are taken in in an instant. I might have to think a bit more about this idea. (And getting nudged into rethinking my positions is part of why I do peek out from my shell now and then, so it's all to the good.)

[DataPacRat]

It's preservation in the way taxidermy is preservation. You're not gonna get 'thawed out' because you'd be dead and you'd remain that way. It's snake oil.

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with you. After doing as much research into the topic as it's feasible to do, I estimate that someone who's cryo-preserved using today's techniques has at least a 95% chance of never being revived.

It's that remaining 5% chance that makes the topic considering. How much is your life worth to you? If you suffered from a disease which might strike you down at any time; and a treatment was available, which cost six thousand dollars per year… would you be willing to scrape together that much cash for it? If the best available treatment only had a fifty percent chance of success… would you be willing to pay three thousand a year it? If the best available treatment only had a five percent chance of success… would you be willing to pay three hundred a year for it?



Only the living have a right to walk the earth.

That's an interesting perspective - but where do you draw the line?

There have been people who have fallen through the ice into freezing water, for, IIRC, 45 minutes or more; and, when pulled forth, they are clinically dead in every sense - no pulse, no breathing, completely flatlined brainwaves. However, with a little TLC, they can be revived, little the worse for wear. While they were dead, did they no longer have any rights?

Is it merely that they can be brought back? There are people in decades-long vegetative states; who have, more recently, been discovered to be locked-in inside their own bodies, and with a bit of electrical gimmickry, can start typing without moving a muscle. But for decades, there was no cure, and no hope for a cure - should they have had their rights removed merely because any cure for them was at some unknown point in the future?

And, more importantly than deciding where the line should be drawn... what process should be used to decided where that line is? If some people think it should be one way, and other people think it should be another, then who gets to make the call?

[Red Economist]

Hm... can you recommend any references about how those groups dealt with religious minorities, with relatively uncommon rites and practices?

The Soviets and Factory Committees were relatively democratic organizations and didn't have any 'fixed' ideology beyond the politics of it's members. So I don't know either way. They got hijacked by the communists (who- as you probably realize- were militant atheists).

This would give you an overview of that early period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_%281917%E2%80%931921%29

it's not looking good for religious minorities I'm afraid.



Hrm... as a self-proclaimed urban hermit, I simply don't have a very good self-portrait gallery. (In fact, I'd be surprised if there's a single public photo of me online.) I'm better at working with words than pictures - but words, however well-crafted, take a certain amount of effort to absorb, while pictures are taken in in an instant. I might have to think a bit more about this idea. (And getting nudged into rethinking my positions is part of why I do peek out from my shell now and then, so it's all to the good.)

If you can write Poetry, that could still work. It simply getting 'us lot' to feel 'moved' so we don't do anything stupid.


While they were dead, did they no longer have any rights?...Is it merely that they can be brought back?...should they have had their rights removed merely because any cure for them was at some unknown point in the future?

HOLY FUCK. what a question!

My initial position is that because we can bring them back, we at least have a responsibility to them to try. I'm judging this less on whether a person is dead or alive, but rather that they could be alive if we gave them a chance and they have a right to it IF the technology is viable.

In the case of someone in a vegatitive state, I would try to let them live in the hope that a cure may one day be found. I think of it more in terms of what right do I have to take another life when I can freely make that decision (without fear of my life being endangered as a result by that other person)? Do I not have a responsibility to keep another person alive and give them every chance I can?




And, more importantly than deciding where the line should be drawn... what process should be used to decided where that line is? If some people think it should be one way, and other people think it should be another, then who gets to make the call?

Preferably a 'scientific' process to establish it; but what you do with that evidence is a separate moral decision in weighing up the options. I would hope it's a decision made by someone who 'knows what they are doing' like a doctor.

[helot]

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with you. After doing as much research into the topic as it's feasible to do, I estimate that someone who's cryo-preserved using today's techniques has at least a 95% chance of never being revived.

It's that remaining 5% chance that makes the topic considering. How much is your life worth to you? If you suffered from a disease which might strike you down at any time; and a treatment was available, which cost six thousand dollars per year… would you be willing to scrape together that much cash for it? If the best available treatment only had a fifty percent chance of success… would you be willing to pay three thousand a year it? If the best available treatment only had a five percent chance of success… would you be willing to pay three hundred a year for it?

I don't pay for medical care ;)


You're phrasing it a bit wrong. You're trying to compare it to medical procedures that while may be risky have had atleast one person coming out the other end alive.


With cryonics you're not only hoping there'd be massive advancements of resuscitation technology, not only a cure to your actual ailment (possibly also a cure for senescence) but also a way to repair the damage done by cryoprotectants which are toxic. It can work for small amounts of cells but we're not even at a stage where cryopreserved organs for transplants is viable.






And, more importantly than deciding where the line should be drawn... what process should be used to decided where that line is? If some people think it should be one way, and other people think it should be another, then who gets to make the call?


There already is a basic process in this case: what's medically feasible.


The question is at what point do we stop providing resources to the deceased and start using them for the living?

[Red Economist]

The question is at what point do we stop providing resources to the deceased and start using them for the living?

That's completely spot on; Hadn't thought of it like that.

[DataPacRat]

The Soviets and Factory Committees were relatively democratic organizations and didn't have any 'fixed' ideology beyond the politics of it's members. So I don't know either way. They got hijacked by the communists (who- as you probably realize- were militant atheists).

This would give you an overview of that early period:

http : // en . wikipedia . org /wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_%281917%E2%80%931921%29

it's not looking good for religious minorities I'm afraid.

Thanks for the link - even with a copy of Wikipedia on my phone, it's not always obvious that an article even exists on a topic to look for.

I suppose one advantage cryonics groups might have in such a situation is that they generally don't require any particular religious beliefs, so wouldn't necessarily be forced to close down in the name of atheism. (Oddly enough, cryonics is also compatible with many forms of religion, such Matthew 10:8's command to "... raise the dead". :) )



If you can write Poetry, that could still work. It simply getting 'us lot' to feel 'moved' so we don't do anything stupid. I'm better at prose, but I'll see what I can do. :)



HOLY FUCK. what a question!<bows> ;)


My initial position is that because we can bring them back, we at least have a responsibility to them to try. I'm judging this less on whether a person is dead or alive, but rather that they could be alive if we gave them a chance and they have a right to it IF the technology is viable. I'm not sure that's the best criteria to apply - there are a /lot/ of 'potential people' who /could/ exist, but we generally don't give any significant human rights to unfertilized sperm or eggs cells.



In the case of someone in a vegatitive state, I would try to let them live in the hope that a cure may one day be found. I think of it more in terms of what right do I have to take another life when I can freely make that decision (without fear of my life being endangered as a result by that other person)? Do I not have a responsibility to keep another person alive and give them every chance I can?Perhaps one variant or another of the Golden or Platinum Rules might apply. Eg, "I want /my/ wishes regarding the treatment of my body and remains to be respected, so in order to make sure that the system will respect my wishes, it should respect everyone's wishes, to whatever degree is feasible." Even better, we don't have to worry about the murky situations where the patient in question hasn't previously established what their wishes actually are, since cryonicists have to fill out a bunch of paperwork which describes what they wish to be done with them.




Preferably a 'scientific' process to establish it; but what you do with that evidence is a separate moral decision in weighing up the options. I would hope it's a decision made by someone who 'knows what they are doing' like a doctor.Somewhat related to my previous paragraph - what if the person whose fate is being discussed has previously written a 'living will', assigning medical power-of-attorney to a chosen person or group?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Perhaps a bit off topci but I think in the coming decades cryogenics will seem archaic. Scientists recently have, to an extent been able to reverse symptoms of aging in mice.We are learning more about genetics and aging. By the time there is a global transition to a post-capitalist revolution there will also probably be some way of placing a living organism in some sort of stasis for long periods of time.

[DataPacRat]

I don't pay for medical care ;)

Tricksy fellow. :) Fine - then at least for the sake of philosophical discussion, feel free to assume that it's a new and/or experimental procedure which NHS doesn't cover.



You're phrasing it a bit wrong. You're trying to compare it to medical procedures that while may be risky have had atleast one person coming out the other end alive. I hope you'll forgive me a bit of a digression; but this statement seems to be based on a certain approach to the nature of evidence and probabilities derived from the evidence.

For certain simple kinds of evidence (where there's a clear pass/fail, such as 'the patient lived), there's a fairly simple mathematical formula, invented a couple of centuries ago, which can be used to determine the future odds of further passing/failing... and which has a few surprising implications.

Let's say that we're standing next to an enormous pile of small balls, some blue, some white. I grab some of them without you being able to see which color they are, and put them into a bag. At this point, with the information available to you, what odds can you place that the first ball you draw forth would be blue? ('Insufficient information' is not the answer, as there are an enormous number of situations where you have to place /some/ number on the odds, and make plans accordingly.)

Let's say that the first ball you draw forth is white. Now, with the information available, what are the odds that the next ball will be blue?

Let's say that the first eighteen balls you draw forth are all white. Now, with the information available, what are the odds that the next ball will be blue?

I'll put a bit of spoiler space in case you'd like to try thinking of the answers without prompting...

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S


The relevant formula is something called "LaPlace's Sunrise Formula", named after the initial problem it was created to solve; or the "Rule of Succession". To generate the odds, you take the number of successful tests and add one; then divide that number by the total number of tests plus two. So before you make any tests, you work out zero plus one divided by zero plus two, which equals one-half; which seems to make a certain amount of sense, as you don't have any information favoring blue or white balls. After the first failed test, you get odds of one-third; which, again, makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, as it's less than one-half, and we've had a piece of evidence which at least vaguely hints in the direction of white balls. After eighteen failed tests, the odds are now merely one out of twenty that the next test will be a success.

The reason I've gone through all this rigamarole... is that no matter how many tests you make that all go one way, there is always a non-zero, measurable chance that the next test will go the other. And also importantly, depending on the number of tests and the amount of evidence you've discovered, you can know the maximum level of confidence you can have. You can't be more than nineteen-out-of-twenty sure without doing at least eighteen tests; you can't be ninety-nine-out-of-a-hundred sure without doing at least around a hundred tests; you can't be nine-hundred-thousand out of a million sure without doing around a million tests.

(I'm using a knowingly simplified version of evidence here, because the more accurate formula, Bayesian Inference, would require a much longer digression just to lead up to the points in the previous paragraph. If you'd like to know more about Bayesian math, you can google for "An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes' Theorem".)



With cryonics you're not only hoping there'd be massive advancements of resuscitation technology, not only a cure to your actual ailment (possibly also a cure for senescence) but also a way to repair the damage done by cryoprotectants which are toxic. It can work for small amounts of cells but we're not even at a stage where cryopreserved organs for transplants is viable. I agree completely.

However, there is an enormous amount of difference between saying "We currently don't know how to do X" and saying "We will never know how to do X". There /are/ certain X's which it is appropriate to say the latter with high levels of confidence, such as 'travel faster than the speed of light'. However, as long as the information content of the brain is kept from deteriorating, such as by being preserved at liquid nitrogen temperatures, then I don't know of any reason to say that that information will never be able to be retrieved.



There already is a basic process in this case: what's medically feasible. So if the best available cure for a cancer has no greater than a 1% success rate, then people with that cancer should not be allowed to try for that cure, because it's not feasible? When there's an experimental cure for a disease that's never been cured before, and there's no other experiment in the offing, then even if the proposed mechanism is 'infeasible', patients should be denied from volunteering for the experiment?



The question is at what point do we stop providing resources to the deceased and start using them for the living?What resources? Should we pave over all graveyards and turn them into condos, flatten ossuaries, snuff out eternal flames, and so forth?

Part of the financial arrangements for cryonics (in today's economic system) involve something similar to the arrangements for buying a grave site: contributing resources to a fund for permanent upkeep. If I have my body cryo-preserved, I'm going to have already contributed all the resources required to /keep/ it that way, without depending on the resources of anyone not involved in cryonics at all. If the economic system changes, then of course whether that system can continue to apply is an open question, but given the number of completely different systems the economy could change to, it's hard to say that something similar would be impossible unless you narrow down which replacement economy you're talking about.

[DataPacRat]

Perhaps a bit off topci but I think in the coming decades cryogenics will seem archaic. Scientists recently have, to an extent been able to reverse symptoms of aging in mice.We are learning more about genetics and aging. By the time there is a global transition to a post-capitalist revolution there will also probably be some way of placing a living organism in some sort of stasis for long periods of time.

I don't think it's off-topic; of course, I managed to spend several paragraphs talking about measuring evidence mathematically and I think they were on-topic, so I might not be the best judge. :)

I don't exactly disagree with your suggestion; however, I'm not sure you've fully considered the odds.

Say that a post-capitalist revolution is going to happen in year Y; and discovering some form of bio-stasis happens in year X. What are the odds of someone alive today dying before /either/ X or Y? If that does happen, then what currently-available mechanisms can possibly help them over the hump, the time period between when they die and when X, Y, or some other relevant Z occur?

For a concrete example - given my age, activities, and health, I have at least even odds of dying before 2050. Call it 25% odds of dying by 2030, from disease or getting hit by a truck. What strategy would you recommend for having the best odds of surviving until a transition to a post-capitalist revolution, if that revolution happens in, say, 2050? 2030? 2100?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This may have been mentioned before but I have doubts as to the efficacy of cryogenics. Doesn't the freezing process destroy cell structures? To be blunt I'm not sure if it works, Ted Stevens not withstanding.Also, assuming it is possible to "revive" a person after they are brain dead (which I think is unlikely). would it still be the same person? Sure same genetic structure, same body, maybe same memories but a different selfhood. It would be a very sophisticated copy of someone.

Also I think the planet's ecosystem is facing damage which could imperil everyone's survival/ Climate change is real and if the current directions are followed I seriously expect major human die offs by 2050, if not sooner.Would people in this situation be interested in keeping the cryonics machinery going?

I think a better bet, if one is interested in literal immortalaty, is to take care of one's health, work towards stopping climate change by fighting the rule of capital, and doing what one can to support genetic research and possible current brain/mind research.

[Red Economist]

Thanks for the link - even with a copy of Wikipedia on my phone, it's not always obvious that an article even exists on a topic to look for.yeah, it does take a while to 'narrow down' what they could be. But Wikipedia is the best for a kind of 'executive summary' of stuff. Sometimes it can have some really interesting and obscure stuff in there.


I'm not sure that's the best criteria to apply - there are a /lot/ of 'potential people' who /could/ exist, but we generally don't give any significant human rights to unfertilized sperm or eggs cells.I had to write out that paragraph a couple of times because I'd taken an essentially 'religious' position on the sanctity of human life without knowing it at the time. As an athiest I had to do a double take because I was dragging up questions about abortion, euthanasia of people who are in comas, etc. But the basic motivation is simply that life should be valued and respected and I hope that holds true regardless.


Perhaps one variant or another of the Golden or Platinum Rules might apply. Eg, "I want /my/ wishes regarding the treatment of my body and remains to be respected, so in order to make sure that the system will respect my wishes, it should respect everyone's wishes, to whatever degree is feasible." Even better, we don't have to worry about the murky situations where the patient in question hasn't previously established what their wishes actually are, since cryonicists have to fill out a bunch of paperwork which describes what they wish to be done with them.

what if the person whose fate is being discussed has previously written a 'living will', assigning medical power-of-attorney to a chosen person or group? This is much better approach than my own, but it does require someone to enforce it. And the problem then becomes that a 'revolution' leads to a disruption in the legal system and it becomes a 'huge mess' as no-one knows who's in charge or what 'laws' are in force. This is of course assuming that a revolution isn't anarchist and abolishes the law altogether, but a moral code of some kind would take it's place. But this isn't something that anyone can control.


However, there is an enormous amount of difference between saying "We currently don't know how to do X" and saying "We will never know how to do X".That's a tight rope which cryonics and communism share; if you accept they are theoretically possible, it then becomes a question of how.


Part of the financial arrangements for cryonics (in today's economic system) involve something similar to the arrangements for buying a grave site: contributing resources to a fund for permanent upkeep. If I have my body cryo-preserved, I'm going to have already contributed all the resources required to /keep/ it that way, without depending on the resources of anyone not involved in cryonics at all. If the economic system changes, then of course whether that system can continue to apply is an open question, but given the number of completely different systems the economy could change to, it's hard to say that something similar would be impossible unless you narrow down which replacement economy you're talking about.If you go from a money economy to one without money based on economic planning this would be a problem. Historically however, despite some attempts to eliminate money in the Russian civil war (and possibly the 1930's), the communists adopted some form of currency and were 'market socialists', but at the extreme end of this definition in terms of how much was state owned, regulated and controlled and the fact that the plan for output would usually override concerns of profit-loss.

The only way I could foresee a moneyless economy to work is a 'digital economy' in which capitalism prepares the ground by making every transaction electorinc, and then communists taking over and simply changing the measures from currency to physical quantities of the goods themselves. I think the idea was played around with the Soviet Union in the 1950's when supercomputers were being used, but I don't think it got off the ground.


For a concrete example - given my age, activities, and health, I have at least even odds of dying before 2050. Call it 25% odds of dying by 2030, from disease or getting hit by a truck. What strategy would you recommend for having the best odds of surviving until a transition to a post-capitalist revolution, if that revolution happens in, say, 2050? 2030? 2100?

Sorry to hear that, hope it's a good life none the less. Fingers crossed, I'll make it to about 2070.

Generally revolutions are not 'predictable' in the mechanical sense; e.g. knowing where the planets are in the solar system, or what phase the moon will be in some future date. I think Lenin or Trotsky said something like 'revolutions don't happen according to railway timetables'.

Rather, a theory suggests an underlying problem with a social order that then becomes process in which society will deteriorate until a situation is produced where people are almost certainly going to revolt. But their is still a very human element of if they get into that situation 'will they do it?'

There is no sure fire way of knowing if a theory is correct because it predicts the future, and you don't know the future until you get there- though this is closely related to discussions as to whether Marxism is a 'science' and therefore whether someone can use it to make 'accurate' predictions. In my view, the general 'chaos' of communism in the past century doesn't support this is the claim, but it's hard to ignore a lot of the insights Marxism has on the 'economic causes' of social, political and intellectual development.

Best guess- I'd say climate change and therefore problems with food and energy security are really going to "piss people off" about mid-century. But it remains an 'educated guess' all the same.

[DataPacRat]

This may have been mentioned before but I have doubts as to the efficacy of cryogenics. Doesn't the freezing process destroy cell structures?

The original forms of cryonics likely did so. However, in the '90's, both major cryonics groups started using a process called 'vitrification', which turns the water in and between cells into a glass-like substance, without it freezing and turning into dangerous and spiky ice crystals. (The chemicals involved are quite toxic, but the currently prevailing theory is that it will be easier to deal with that toxicity than to try to reconstruct ice damage.)



To be blunt I'm not sure if it works, Ted Stevens not withstanding.

I'm also not sure it works. In fact, I'm 95% sure that it /won't/ work.



Also, assuming it is possible to "revive" a person after they are brain dead (which I think is unlikely). would it still be the same person? Sure same genetic structure, same body, maybe same memories but a different selfhood. It would be a very sophisticated copy of someone.

Without derailing the thread into philosophical notions of 'self'hood: I would rather be dead and have someone revived who shares my personality, skills, memories, and interests; than be dead without that someone existing.



Also I think the planet's ecosystem is facing damage which could imperil everyone's survival/ Climate change is real and if the current directions are followed I seriously expect major human die offs by 2050, if not sooner.Would people in this situation be interested in keeping the cryonics machinery going?

Out of the 300-odd-million people in North America who could be considered cryonics' prime candidates, somewhere on the order of 3,000 people are signed up. It only takes a handful of individuals to run a cryo facility; so even if the population were to crash by 99%, then there would be enough cryonicists to keep the liquid nitrogen topped up. (There have been occasional and serious discussions about putting together a solar-powered liquid-nitrogen condenser, for just such an occasion; but at the moment, it's an extremely low priority for an extremely carefully-managed budget.)

Still, the probability of a sufficiently comprehensive societal collapse is a significant part of my estimate of cryonics having 95% odds of failure.



I think a better bet, if one is interested in literal immortalaty, is to take care of one's health, work towards stopping climate change by fighting the rule of capital, and doing what one can to support genetic research and possible current brain/mind research.

Fortunately, at least at the moment, it's not an either/or choice - it's possible to do all of what you suggest as well as be signed up for cryonics.

(I'm still working at /understanding/ the rule of capital, let alone grokking it well enough to be able to seriously consider nudging it in any particular direction.)

[DataPacRat]

yeah, it does take a while to 'narrow down' what they could be. But Wikipedia is the best for a kind of 'executive summary' of stuff. Sometimes it can have some really interesting and obscure stuff in there.

Sidetip: I usually set my home page to be the 'random article' link of one or another major Wiki. (At the moment, RationalWiki.)



I had to write out that paragraph a couple of times because I'd taken an essentially 'religious' position on the sanctity of human life without knowing it at the time. As an athiest I had to do a double take because I was dragging up questions about abortion, euthanasia of people who are in comas, etc. But the basic motivation is simply that life should be valued and respected and I hope that holds true regardless.

In case it helps, a couple of my long-standing ethical rules of thumb are that being interested in one's own rational long-term self-interest can produce behaviour that's nearly indistinguishable from 'ethical' or 'moral' behaviour; and that this becomes even more true if you assume that you're not going to be able to have publicly-accepted rules that benefit you at the expense of others. So, since most people (including me and presumably you) want their lives to be respected, and it's impractical to have some rule or system which respects their lives but not others, the best approach is for a rule/system/whatever which respects all their lives.

Things do get a little tricky at the various edge cases, such as the ones you mention, but these rules-of-thumb seem to be strong enough to sharpen the dividing lines by a lot.



This is much better approach than my own, but it does require someone to enforce it. And the problem then becomes that a 'revolution' leads to a disruption in the legal system and it becomes a 'huge mess' as no-one knows who's in charge or what 'laws' are in force. This is of course assuming that a revolution isn't anarchist and abolishes the law altogether, but a moral code of some kind would take it's place. But this isn't something that anyone can control.

Hm... I'm not sure that's /quite/ right. I'm thinking of situations where there wasn't a centrally-enforced rule of law, such as the commonwealth of Iceland; in such a case, people were more than willing to enforce what they felt should be the law themselves, even if that led to negative consequences, such as a feud where someone in Family A killed someone in Family B, then someone from B killed A in retaliation, and so on. Even when they had the annual meeting to get together and debate what the law should be, such as that an unlawful murder required the payment of a fine, such situations could still happen. (In fact, in at least one case, the same bag of silver was handed back and forth multiple times.)

If matters become as unsettled as you describe they might be... then at least some cryonicists would likely be willing to defend their cryo facility from anyone who takes it into their head to 'burn the greedy plutocrats who froze themselves'. I'm reasonably sure that even in an unsettled legal system, using force to defend oneself and one's property would be at least within the gray zone of acceptability, enough so that whatever social costs are imposed could be considered as a reasonable cost for the cryonicist's shot at personal immortality. (Or, if you'd prefer a religious metaphor, to defend their one-and-only opportunity for their immortal soul to avoid being destroyed upon their death, the way the Egyptians had the threat of Ammet for those whose hearts were heavy with sin.)



If you go from a money economy to one without money based on economic planning this would be a problem. Historically however, despite some attempts to eliminate money in the Russian civil war (and possibly the 1930's), the communists adopted some form of currency and were 'market socialists', but at the extreme end of this definition in terms of how much was state owned, regulated and controlled and the fact that the plan for output would usually override concerns of profit-loss.

The only way I could foresee a moneyless economy to work is a 'digital economy' in which capitalism prepares the ground by making every transaction electorinc, and then communists taking over and simply changing the measures from currency to physical quantities of the goods themselves. I think the idea was played around with the Soviet Union in the 1950's when supercomputers were being used, but I don't think it got off the ground.

A year or two ago, I read a piece of online fiction which suggested a possibility for a replacement currency during such a period of unsettlement: cell-phone minutes. Easy to transfer, easy for anyone who can take control of enough cell-phone towers to issue, easy to understand, with a certain inherent value... I honestly haven't been able to think of anything better.



Sorry to hear that, hope it's a good life none the less. Fingers crossed, I'll make it to about 2070.

According to deathclock dot com, my personal day of death is, using 'normal' mode, July 23, 2048. In 'optimistic' mode, I make it to September 12, 2061. (According to 'sadistic' mode, I'm already dead...)



Generally revolutions are not 'predictable' in the mechanical sense; e.g. knowing where the planets are in the solar system, or what phase the moon will be in some future date. I think Lenin or Trotsky said something like 'revolutions don't happen according to railway timetables'.

Rather, a theory suggests an underlying problem with a social order that then becomes process in which society will deteriorate until a situation is produced where people are almost certainly going to revolt. But their is still a very human element of if they get into that situation 'will they do it?'

There is no sure fire way of knowing if a theory is correct because it predicts the future, and you don't know the future until you get there- though this is closely related to discussions as to whether Marxism is a 'science' and therefore whether someone can use it to make 'accurate' predictions. In my view, the general 'chaos' of communism in the past century doesn't support this is the claim, but it's hard to ignore a lot of the insights Marxism has on the 'economic causes' of social, political and intellectual development.

Best guess- I'd say climate change and therefore problems with food and energy security are really going to "piss people off" about mid-century. But it remains an 'educated guess' all the same.

Surety isn't something I demand of any prediction. When you can go from 'educated guess' to 'I estimate a 60% chance of a revolution between 2050 and 2060', you'll have joined the Bayesian Conspiracy. :)

That said, having at least some idea of what the range of possibilities are, and even a rough idea of the odds, can help enormously in laying plans. (The ideal mastermind doesn't insist on having a perfect plan that will lead to victory; the true general will arrange matters so that /all/ plans will lead to victory. ;)) 'Avoiding permanent death' is admittedly a pretty ambitious goal (at least, without taking into account Everett Immortality), but I've already learned a few things in this thread which just might help serve as stepping stones for plans that won't be derailed by as transitory a thing as a complete upsetting of the socio-economic system. :grin:

[Red Economist]

Sidetip: I usually set my home page to be the 'random article' link of one or another major Wiki. (At the moment, RationalWiki.)

Thanks. Will have to try that.


In case it helps, a couple of my long-standing ethical rules of thumb are that being interested in one's own rational long-term self-interest can produce behaviour that's nearly indistinguishable from 'ethical' or 'moral' behaviour; and that this becomes even more true if you assume that you're not going to be able to have publicly-accepted rules that benefit you at the expense of others. So, since most people (including me and presumably you) want their lives to be respected, and it's impractical to have some rule or system which respects their lives but not others, the best approach is for a rule/system/whatever which respects all their lives.

I agree with you on it being "rational long-term self-interest", as it seems that the short-term ignores often deeply destructive social consequences. I try not adopt 'hard and fast' rules (as I found with Marxism this gets very dogmatic and counter-productive with this and figured it must be the same for everything else) and am instead learning to trust my own emotions as to what I want to respect or not and throwing a bit of thought into the process. So thanks.


If matters become as unsettled as you describe they might be... then at least some cryonicists would likely be willing to defend their cryo facility from anyone who takes it into their head to 'burn the greedy plutocrats who froze themselves'.

I was thinking along the same lines as well. The mental image I had was of a group of people storming into a cryo-facility in the heat of the moment.


A year or two ago, I read a piece of online fiction which suggested a possibility for a replacement currency during such a period of unsettlement: cell-phone minutes. Easy to transfer, easy for anyone who can take control of enough cell-phone towers to issue, easy to understand, with a certain inherent value... I honestly haven't been able to think of anything better.

Nice. :grin:

The only problem with communism is what is technologically feasible and how far people would have to change to accept it is possible. we have a way to go, but we'll get there eventually.


According to deathclock dot com, my personal day of death is, using 'normal' mode, July 23, 2048. In 'optimistic' mode, I make it to September 12, 2061. (According to 'sadistic' mode, I'm already dead...)

I think the death clock is a random number generator. (I got 2063 after a quick check). For life expectancy, I think of it as living to age 80 (I'm currently 24, so 56 years to go) and ignoring the 'acts of god' before hand because I can't control them. of course, I'm still quietly hoping technology will have advanced a bit before then, so I might be a few years extra!


That said, having at least some idea of what the range of possibilities are, and even a rough idea of the odds, can help enormously in laying plans. (The ideal mastermind doesn't insist on having a perfect plan that will lead to victory; the true general will arrange matters so that /all/ plans will lead to victory. ;))

Well said. I try to avoid military metaphors as I am a bit of a pacifist but in-built flexibility is always key.


'Avoiding permanent death' is admittedly a pretty ambitious goal (at least, without taking into account Everett Immortality), but I've already learned a few things in this thread which just might help serve as stepping stones for plans that won't be derailed by as transitory a thing as a complete upsetting of the socio-economic system.

Glad to have been of help. :grin:

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi Data: For the success of science as a whole (even for the contact with extraterrestrials some day), for the invention of a medicine for obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart diseases, for the cure of hunger, for the cure of physical weakness, abulia (low will-power), pessimism, negativity in people, egocentrism, low-self esteem, hatred between people, narcissism, and many other physiological biological and mental problems which are also linked to economic problems. We first need a destruction of the current *dictatorships of the upper classes* we have in USA, Europe and many other countries and replace them with *dictatorships of the working classes and poor citizens* [socialist stage], in each country of this world. And even in that political phase there would still be a need of socialist governments to spend lots of their resources and political energies in destroying the right-wing class, and preventing the right-wing classes from returning to power. So I think that mankind might have to wait for the anarchist-communism phase for the scientists to invest in transhumanist technology, cryonics and help mankind evolve toward the post-human phase.

Because in capitalist governments only the rich can afford life-extention and super advanced technology for their health. And in the workers-dictatorship phase, the workers-state will be too busy trying to destroy capitalist classes and to prevent capitalists from returning to power. So maybe in the anarchist-communism phase we will see a super fast leap forward in evolution and science in the whole world, because there won't be wars, weapons and so many crimes, and big problems for mankind


I tend to learn better when I have some concrete examples I can refer to; so I'm hoping that if you're reading this, you can tell me how your view of a leftist revolution would affect the proceedings.

A lot of people have the impression that only rich people can afford to be cryonically preserved. This is far from the truth - depending on your particular arrangements, the total cost can be roughly $300 per year. About half of that is dues to the cryonics organization, to help pay for rent, utilities, maintenance, liquid nitrogen, and other continuing expenses. The other half pays for the premiums of a life insurance policy, whose payout covers the one-time expenses of preservation.

Regardless of how faint the hope of eventual revival might be, or whether such a group should be considered a club, a graveyard, a research institution, a religion, a mutual-assistance society, or just a rather expensive and complicated set of funeral arrangements... the above description relies on certain economic assumptions, such as a group being able to own the building holding the cryostats; that it's possible to buy life insurance; that money itself continues to exist. Depending on the particulars of any theorized revolution, some to all of these assumptions might be overturned.

Assuming that the main goal of members of cryonics organizations are to continue to keep cryo-preserved people preserved, and to continue to cryo-preserve their members as necessary... what changes would have to be made to continue doing so, come the revolution and the establishment of a non-capitalistic economy?

[Sabot Cat]

Hi Data: For the success of science as a whole (even for the contact with extraterrestrials some day), for the invention of a medicine for obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart diseases, for the cure of hunger, for the cure of physical weakness, abulia (low will-power), pessimism, negativity in people, egocentrism, low-self esteem, hatred between people, narcissism, and many other physiological biological and mental problems which are also linked to economic problems. We first need a destruction of the current *dictatorships of the upper classes* we have in USA, Europe and many other countries and replace them with *dictatorships of the working classes and poor citizens* [socialist stage], in each country of this world. And even in that political phase there would still be a need of socialist governments to spend lots of their resources and political energies in destroying the right-wing class, and preventing the right-wing classes from returning to power. So I think that mankind might have to wait for the anarchist-communism phase for the scientists to invest in transhumanist technology, cryonics and help mankind evolve toward the post-human phase.

I think OP means that will the people already in cryonic stasis be maintained while the proletariat is assuming power; furthermore, scientists who are able to extend people's lifespans shouldn't sit around waiting for the revolution of the proletariat before doing their research if they can do it now.


Because in capitalist governments only the rich can afford life-extention and super advanced technology for their health.

Modern medicine is indeed something that is often more accessible to the wealthy than those who are not, but that doesn't mean no one should have it; it means that more people should have it too.


And in the workers-dictatorship phase, the workers-state will be too busy trying to destroy capitalist classes and to prevent capitalists from returning to power.

I'm assuming not all of the proletariat will need to do that. I'm sure there will still be plumbers, cooks, dentists, firefighters, and scientists that can and need to be doing something else after the revolution. There's millions of people, and it doesn't take that many to enforce regulations.


So maybe in the anarchist-communism phase we will see a super fast leap forward in evolution and science in the whole world, because there won't be wars, weapons and so many crimes, and big problems for mankind

Evolution isn't linear or inherently progressive.

[lilyren]

Each revolution can make a big difference in people's daily life.
With the improvement of technology,there are more and more upgraded electronic products appear in people's daily life.The security cameras play an important role in the modern life to guaranty the safety of people's home and office.Also the WiFi Jammer which can be got from jammerfromchina.com is a useful instrument for people to create a quiet condition.