[Custodiam]

Sorry if this topic is similar to another topics but I'm very curious about the REAL possibilities.

I read so many very different accounts and opinions about possible technology concerning human cryopreservation.

What is achievable in 20 years time?

Realistically?

I'm very curious about "really" reversible cryopreservation, so we should count the ALCOR-type cryonics solutions out in this topic...

This post has been edited by Custodiam: 28 September 2009 - 01:45 PM

[Vgamer1]

I'm not very knowledgeable about cryonics in general. I think what you're talking about - reversing the damage of cryopreservation - is obviously a future possibility - or else no one would do it.

However, what you're talking about, in my opinion, would qualify as a "scientific breakthrough," which are notoriously difficult to predict...

I don't have a better answer than that. Maybe someone with more knowledge can give a more informed opinion.

[Custodiam]

What I mean is that are there any available technology in 2009 to achieve this goal?

Or most "results" are just speculations or pure sci-fi?

I don't really see many research findings or solutions as very practical. It seems that we are decades away from a real solution.

For example will nanotechnology be so advanced and inexpensive in 2029 that we can realistically say that it can be used in cryopreservation or life extension?

So do we really know any working solutions?

[Custodiam]

Hi Vgamer1!

Thanks for your reply. I just wrote my second post while you were posting yours...so it is not really a reply for your post lol.

But I'm really confused about what is possible and what can be possible in twenty years time.

Are we spending enough money for research? Is working cryopreservation achievable?

[Vgamer1]

Hard to say...

Right now, from what I know, we're in the "research" stage of reversing cryopreservation. It's not pure sci-fi. There are actually methods scientists are experimenting with - some have promise - but only time will tell if they will be successful.

On the same note, there aren't any "working solutions" yet.

Advanced nanotechnology would ideally solve this issue, but how far away is that technology? Ray Kurzweil may say something like 2029, but others consider him overly optimistic. I'm not quoting Ray here, just trying to give a guesstimate...

Do you think 2029 is realistic? What is that based on? Is it just a guess or hunch? What about "20 years" sounds right to you?

This post has been edited by Vgamer1: 28 September 2009 - 03:19 PM

[Vgamer1]

And I replied to your reply which was not a reply to my reply lol

[Mind]

Well, if you believe Kurzweil's aggressive positive outlook, then sure, there will be some major breakthrough in preservation and reversal.

A mammal organ has already been vitrified down to liquid nitrogen temps and brought back to semi-normal function....and that was a couple years ago. Still, there are very few people in the world working on this problem (whole body or neuro-preservation) that makes it unlikely that there will be any advances in the very near term.

[Vgamer1]

Mind, on Sep 28 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

A mammal organ has already been vitrified down to liquid nitrogen temps and brought back to semi-normal function....and that was a couple years ago. Still, there are very few people in the world working on this problem (whole body or neuro-preservation) that makes it unlikely that there will be any advances in the very near term.

I was unaware of this. Do you know of any recent developments?

[Custodiam]

Quote

Still, there are very few people in the world working on this problem (whole body or neuro-preservation) that makes it unlikely that there will be any advances in the very near term.

It is quite shocking for me. Whole body preservation can be useful in many areas. It can be a real time machine for sick or adventurous people.

I'm not quite sure that in future deep space journeys hibernation or cryopreservation is the better method.

[Vgamer1]

Custodiam, on Sep 28 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

I'm not quite sure that in future deep space journeys hibernation or cryopreservation is the better method.

Curious. Do you have an alternate idea?

[bgwowk]

I think in the next 20 years more small animal organs, and perhaps some human organs, may be reversibly cryopreserved. The best scenario for cryonics would be improved, and possibly demonstrably reversible, cryopreservation of animal brains. It has been long observed that if reversible solid-state brain preservation could be demonstrated, then cryonics revival becomes a purely technical problem (albeit very complex one) of tissue regeneration. There would be no remaining doubt about whether the preservation itself was viably preserving human beings.

Unfortunately for such a scenario, there are very few labs in the world studying cryopreservation of organs. Even the broader field of cryobiology is an orphan science, with only a couple of hundred scientists studying all forms of cryopreservation (cells, tissues, organs, cold tolerance in nature, etc.), and most of them are hostile or indifferent to cryonics.

Reversible solid-state cryopreservation of whole mammals is a very difficult problem with existing technology. This is why when asked about it people will often defer to nanotechnology. References to nanotechnology as a solution to a medical problem basically say, "We have no idea how to solve this problem with existing tools, but future abilities to completely analyze and repair tissue at the molecular level will be implicitly sufficient." It's a valid argument, but saying that a medical problem will be solved when someday technology exists to solve *every* medical problem is not very illuminating about time lines or nature of the problem. I personally think reversible cryopreservation of whole mammals might eventually be doable with technologies in between present technology and "mature nanotechnology", but it will take longer than 20 years.

[Vgamer1]

Well said.

[lunarsolarpower]

Custodiam, on Sep 28 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

It is quite shocking for me. Whole body preservation can be useful in many areas. It can be a real time machine for sick or adventurous people.

I agree with this.

Custodiam, on Sep 28 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

I'm not quite sure that in future deep space journeys hibernation or cryopreservation is the better method.

I don't think biological organisms are necessarily best suited to deep space travel. Well, with one exception that is.

[niner]

Our reliance on an unspecified future nanotechnology strikes me as rather similar to saying "and then a miracle happens". Drexlerian nanobots are not inevitable, and might not even be possible.

[bgwowk]

niner, on Sep 28 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

Our reliance on an unspecified future nanotechnology strikes me as rather similar to saying "and then a miracle happens". Drexlerian nanobots are not inevitable, and might not even be possible.

It's not quite as bad as saying "then a miracle happens" because the kind of molecular manipulations needed to reverse general tissue injuries are both physically possible and already demonstrated in nature (metabolism, enzymes, transduction, growth and development). Excessive focus on a specific kind of molecular technology (Drexlerian) creates a bit of a straw man. It's sufficient to merely observe that the toolbox of existing and possible biological technologies can with enough development time be put together in ways that can effect general repairs of cells and tissues.

Of course the observation still stands that a medical problem that can only be solved by technologies advanced enough to solve all medical problems must be a pretty serious medical problem. Reversible cryopreservation of whole mammals is almost that kind of problem. If one specifies that reversal must be to a state of reasonable health, then in my opinion it is definitely that kind of problem (i.e. one requiring sophisticated healing technology). "Revival" in the form of simply recovering some vital signs such as heartbeat is easier, and might even be demonstrated in the nearer term. But I don't think that revival of an animal or person mortally injured by the cryopreservation process is what cryonicists mean by "reversible cryopreservation".

[karen]

Once we are able to clone whole individual organs, there will suddenly be a great need to to be able to store them indefinitely as a prophylactic measure.

[Luna]

lunarsolarpower, on Sep 28 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

Custodiam, on Sep 28 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

It is quite shocking for me. Whole body preservation can be useful in many areas. It can be a real time machine for sick or adventurous people.

I agree with this.

Custodiam, on Sep 28 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

I'm not quite sure that in future deep space journeys hibernation or cryopreservation is the better method.

I don't think biological organisms are necessarily best suited to deep space travel. Well, with one exception that is.

I thought space radiation is relatively weak and that some insects on earth can survive it?

We will be able to overcome it somehow, won't we?

[Vgamer1]

One would hope.

[Custodiam]

Quote

Curious. Do you have an alternate idea?

Well, I mean space travel can be damaging in at least two ways: the psychological effects of waiting and pure horror of vast empty space around the ship, and of course the aging of the biological parts of the ship (I mean the human crew).

So it can be really interesting to create a network of biological minds which can be repaired, which can backup any personality connected to the network. If this human network is connected to some kind of virtual environment, I think both the aging and psychological factors are out of the picture.

[Custodiam]

Quote

Do you think 2029 is realistic? What is that based on? Is it just a guess or hunch? What about "20 years" sounds right to you?

Well, I think in 20 years time the first "real" sci-fi generation (born from 1960 on) will face their mortality. I think that the promised technological advances are much more humble that we hoped it would be. So time is ticking away.

The strange thing is that even Benjamin Franklin suggested in his 1773 letter that it might be possible to preserve human life in suspended state for centuries.

No one seems to finance any real technology to achieve this goal. On the other hand we spend thousands of billions of dollars for developing and mass producing highly advanced killing technologies.

I simply don't get it.

This post has been edited by Custodiam: 29 September 2009 - 08:34 AM