Cryonics Will Scare Your Head Off Monday, May 17 2010
cryonics 7:39 pm

Annalee Newitz apparently thinks cryonics is creepy.
Her favorite comment on the photo collection of dewars (scary!) was this articulate one:

Profound.
Question: is cryonics any more “creepy” than what we already do with bodies where metabolism has ceased?
Human beings are largely unaware about the gruesome nature of “death”.
Humans also shy away from the mutilation that occurs during hospital surgery.
Hollywood films portray cryonics in a glamorous high-tech manner that makes it appear that one’s body can easily be placed into a capsule and frozen for future revival.
Reality is that cryopreservation involves complex surgery whereby tubes are inserted into major arteries and veins in order to deliver special anti-freeze solutions into the brain. The purpose is to reduce or eliminate freezing damage and other types of damage to brain cells. The process involves introducing stabilizing drugs and a special solution in the field and a major procedure in an operating room.
There’s nothing pretty about human cryopreservation, but as you’ll read, the alternatives are truly ghastly—and every alternative involves the head eventually separating from the body.
We deceive ourselves
When I worked as a licensed embalmer, I was quite talented at taking horrific human remains and making them look good temporarily. In order to do this, a tremendous amount of mutilation was done to each corpse.
First step is to wire or sew their mouths shut. Incisions are made in the neck, groin and other areas to access arteries to insert tubes that were used to force formaldehyde in. Veins are accessed (raised) to push blood out.
While formaldehyde delivered through blood vessels preserves tissues of the body, it does little to keep cavities (such as the stomach, bowels, lungs and cranium) from putrefying. To keep the body from decomposing before burial, we used a device that resembles a thick hollow sword to repeatedly penetrate the body cavities to vacuum out as much of the liquid contents as possible. We would then reverse the process by pouring formaldehyde directly into the thoracic and abdominal cavities and sometimes the brain. Sometimes the same sword (trocar) used to evacuate the bowels was shoved up the nose through the sinuses to suck out cerebral-spinal fluid in the cranium.
When I learned how to do this in mortuary school, I thought how undignified the entire process is. Without embalming, however, the outcome is even worse.
You know what’s creepier than cryonics dewars? That the editor-in-chief of an ostensibly progressive, futurist blog could be so explicitly anti-transhumanist, anti-Singularity, and anti-life extension.
Consider the other side of the story before you condemn cryonics along with Ms. Newitz.




It is surprising that someone from io9 would commend disgust-based arguments … as the wikipedia article on the ‘wisdom of repugnance’ notes, disgust has little moral and logical value outside the context in which it evolved.
About the article titled “Four Arguments Against Immortality.”
“We will no longer be human.” No we won’t but we’ll still be persons. And I think we’ll be better than humans. What’s so great about humans?
“So you’ve ported your consciousness into a cyberheaven, or a giant blue alien with sexytime hair, or a deadly robot who wears a plunger on his head. The thing is, you still have the same problems.” Why would we still have the same problems if our consciousness resided in artificial reality and our mind had been reshaped? Because some fictional characters in popular media have those problems?
“Our augmented bodies and minds will be hackable.” Something to think about, but I just don’t find the argument credible. It posits the same old childish, illogical behavior from post humans with augmented intelligence that we get in the present day. I believe post humans will grow morally as much as in intelligence. And if it’s not post humans doing the hacking where will unmodified humans get the ability to hack into minds many times more powerful?
“We’ll have to deal with the immortality divide. Immortality technologies will exacerbate the already-growing divide between rich and poor.” The inability to get beyond the notion of the zero sum game seems to be a common failing.
As I’ve said elsewhere on this site, naive people tend to picture the future as the present, only more so. This author sees immortality magnifying present day problems, but doesn’t understand how our existence will be transformed and present day problems eliminated.
How much energy should we expend on people like this? Is there really a point to engaging them in debate other than it being a kind of hobby? I mean what practical differnce will it make?
I’m actually a bit impressed with the comments responding to “Four Arguments Against Immortality”. The majority of commenters seem to be thinking clearly. Not that there aren’t a few hopelessly trite replies as well, but the ratio is surprisingly low considering this is the internet.
This is way creepier-er.
http://atlasobscura.com/place/kaplica-czazek-chapel-skulls
Darwin award for annalee!
Her are my thoughts on the four arguments against immortality:
http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/002267.html
Too impressed by the quality of the responses? Me too. Way too much effort. Here’s one that’s at the exact level of the “arguments”: GaaaaaaaAAAAHHHH
Ehhh, as always I see “missed the point” letters screaming from behind. Cryonics is creepy for some because “you” will be still alive at some level of logic, and “you” will be fully functional after some time passes (hopefully), but what happens in between is independent of your will, you basically remain a thing and everybody can do whatever they wish with your body, that is you. Once you will be un-frozen you could realize that, for instance, during “sleep” somebody have decided that your ideas about politics and society are illegal and should be erased somehow, or that you have too good-looking face, so they will give you some nice, fashinable scars-or whatever. Just giving examples. So yes, it is creepy and always will be. It doesnt mean that it isn’t good idea, nor that critics using arguments such as “well, it’s horrible that I will be cut open” are right. They too miss the point. Cryogneics isn’t bad. Just not that good as tranhsumanists tend to think.