Have you considered cryo-preservation?
Rather than invite a torrent of ill-informed comments about this issue, the FAQ section at the Cryonics Institute's website will clear up most issues relating to cryonics. Find this here: http://www.cryonics.org/prod.html
People tend to imagine cryonics is expensive, which simply isn't true. They also tend to dismiss it because it doesn't work yet - which isn't entirely true either, as feotuses and living cells are regularly reanimated from cryo-preservation.
How about looking at cryonics this way - if it offers even a slim chance of reanimation (with the aid of future nano-medicines to ensure repair of all tissues) isn't investing in that possibility worthy of your consideration?
I don't think we'll survive as a species long enuf to be able to learn how to repair cellular tissue at the level of magnitude that would be required to reanimate a human.
I wouldn't want to be reanimated in a worn out body and with a brain that at death was at the end of its usefullness.
Even if a 'new" young head could be "attached," it wouldn't be my brain, memories and /or intelligence.
I think cryogenics is a farce.
Would you reject a heart transplant, for eg., because the replacement wasn't "yours"?
Research in age-reversal sciences and understanding DNA is unfolding right now. People like Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey are the most well-known names linked to these emerging sciences. Science evolves exponentially, so who knows where the future will take us.
They will have to invent a container, to capture the Soul.
It is in fact quite probable that we could achieve it (or have we already ?), but even if, the public will never know (it's one of these many science projects where results are forbidden to publish in public) at least not for many decades.
This is because if people start freezing themselves to live longer there will be huge number of abuses of this technology, I mean who wouldn't want to "go to the future" ? Also how would one decide who gets to do it ?
I can't say I'd like to return to the future I envision.
This pessimist see's a tough one.
Haha so 1 person less for the future-trip only 6.7-6.9 billion left
Damn PhD, you figgered that one out fast...lol
Is there a formula/equation that coincides with that answer...lol :
Hahaha I'm a genius see:
the secret is that you (1) compared to the rest of humanity (6900000000)- that's so small of a fraction (1,44927536 E-10), it's negligible (only mathematically speaking of course! xD) therefore the math's quite easy can I get a Nobel prize for that ? Oh no wait, there's no Nobel prize for maths (while Physiology or Medicine, Physics and Chemistry dooo have one (oh and literature and peace - why the heck?) Muahaha xD
Nah o.k. now serious! I think that's quite depressing if you look at it that way :S ?!
PhD I memorized it! :
I know it's depressing...that's why I'm referred to in the forums as Mr Doom and gloom! The nadir of pessimism!
Straighten these skeptics out will ya...:
hahaha why is that? Don't you look at the bright side of life ? C'mon, maybe we all live in a/the "Matrix"
Oh sure, but as a student of life, the rise of "man" has been amazing but disgustingly bloody.
We humans are a "complex" form of life which has just appeared and functioning without coordination as is expected of the infant it is.
Evolution takes a very slow and tortuous route when working with such as us.
I view the next 100 yrs very pessimistically.
We have gained an ability to harm all extant life.
We, as a "semi-conscious" species, are so "fragmented" by abject ignorance that the possiblity of coming together, in concert, to ensure the viablity of humanity does not exist.
My life is and has been wonderful. I hope it will continue for a few more years and that my son and grandkids will not be robbed of theirs.
Maybe W'ell continue on in a dimension of the "M" theory. lol
Hey qwark! Sorry for my late answer
Well yes that certainly is true but is a part of evolution, it's quite unbelievable that this rivalry has stopped at least a bit Who knows what happens when suddenly survivor of the fittest is on again because food sources or other needed goods are depleted ?
Oh you're also right about the next 100 yrs somehow the probability that we will be the cause for our own termination/destruction is rising every year. Again quite unbelievable but here's good old evolution all over again xD We'd rather die than living all together in peace and harmony (which isn't possible with the 6.9 billions humans currently living on the planet, that's just too much for our planet to handle, sooner or later mass mortality will be increased when suddenly everyone is fighting for survival again. Or how would you explain that all Great Power nations stock up their weapons pile in secret, while pretending to disarm (this is of course a great publicity, and a great way to recycle precious material from old weapons to use it in new deadlier weapons )
Oh hell yeah, there are so many dimensions (not to mention the endless parallel-dimensions), which one do you prefer ? xD
You are right, of course.
Human evolution is "alive and well."
My "Malthusian" attitude has its foundation based upon the history of we humans and the fact that today we are increasing in numbers very rapidly.
I've written "hubs" concerning "overpopulation" so I won't go into the innate potential incurred.
I cannot envision man continuing on, as he is, for much longer.
I don't think he will become "extinct," but he will be reduced in numbers and regressed, as Einstein said, (paraphrase) to the stone age where he will, no doubt, mutate into forms of human life that we would not recognize.
Thanks for responding :
well you're unfortunately right, I just hope we will at least end up as an evolved species learning from our errors and not in stone age waiting for the "black monolith" to come xD
Amen and amen!
I've also written about life beyond that "Black Monolith."
Most who have read about my interpretation of the "singularity" I envision, haven't the imagination to conceive of it.
Nice chatting with ya. :
I already read a couple of your Hubs, but I definitely need more time to read all of them! Or at least some of them! They're brilliant!
But right now I better get back to work, I have an awful lot of calculations to do as quickly as possible, there's already a bunch of nervous scientists waiting for it, and as soon as they've seen all Star Trek movies in a row, and there's nothing left to do, I better have the results ready
They are not called ice cubes - that is insensitive and not very PC. The correct terminology is "corpsickles". It takes a pretty big tongue to do one justice.
If either of you had read the recommended FAQs, you'd know that cryo patients are not preserved in ice.... Tsk tsk!
I'm not sure I want to consider anything for eternity that starts with cry :
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.