fluffy666 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Ok. So, as we all know, the ageing population is going to cause crises in care funding and pensions, and meanwhile lots of old people are clogging up houses.. But it's worse than that. Assuming technological progress continues, within 50-100 years it is (fairly) reasonable to imagine that all of today's diseases will be curable, or at least fixable, including general aging to some degree. After all, if you can grow a new body in a vat - which should not be a vast problem - then the only organ you need to be able to fix is the brain. Against this background, the idea that we are allowing people to grow very old and die seems pretty inhumane. You could be just a few decades away from near-immortality, yet your only current option is to carry on - quite possibly to be destroyed by dementia/cancer/general age. So what we should be doing is freezing people. Cryogenic preservation is 'getting there' in terms of what we can and can't freeze and revive, and if we restrict the problem to the brain only, it's not *that* far off. The real problem is that at the moment we wait for people to die before attempting cryopreservation, which kind of misses the point. Really, we should be offering this as an option to anyone getting to the age of 70, or with a terminal diagnosis (cancer/heart failure/dementia/etc) where waiting could easily cause irreversable information-loss in the brain. This would have the effects of 'clearing the decks' of a lot of people who would otherwise suffer hugely and expensively. And hopefully they would be 'reborn' 100 years hence in a new body with any illness cured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'd love to see the UK govt roll this one out. No, we're not going withdraw free bus passes. We're actually going to kill you and chop your head off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Ok. So, as we all know, the ageing population is going to cause crises in care funding and pensions, and meanwhile lots of old people are clogging up houses.. But it's worse than that. Assuming technological progress continues, within 50-100 years it is (fairly) reasonable to imagine that all of today's diseases will be curable, or at least fixable, including general aging to some degree. After all, if you can grow a new body in a vat - which should not be a vast problem - then the only organ you need to be able to fix is the brain. Against this background, the idea that we are allowing people to grow very old and die seems pretty inhumane. You could be just a few decades away from near-immortality, yet your only current option is to carry on - quite possibly to be destroyed by dementia/cancer/general age. So what we should be doing is freezing people. Cryogenic preservation is 'getting there' in terms of what we can and can't freeze and revive, and if we restrict the problem to the brain only, it's not *that* far off. The real problem is that at the moment we wait for people to die before attempting cryopreservation, which kind of misses the point. Really, we should be offering this as an option to anyone getting to the age of 70, or with a terminal diagnosis (cancer/heart failure/dementia/etc) where waiting could easily cause irreversable information-loss in the brain. This would have the effects of 'clearing the decks' of a lot of people who would otherwise suffer hugely and expensively. And hopefully they would be 'reborn' 100 years hence in a new body with any illness cured. I would hate to have your brain, inside any body. (If you are being serious, that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Ok. So, as we all know, the ageing population is going to cause crises in care funding and pensions, and meanwhile lots of old people are clogging up houses.. But it's worse than that. Assuming technological progress continues, within 50-100 years it is (fairly) reasonable to imagine that all of today's diseases will be curable, or at least fixable, including general aging to some degree. After all, if you can grow a new body in a vat - which should not be a vast problem - then the only organ you need to be able to fix is the brain. Against this background, the idea that we are allowing people to grow very old and die seems pretty inhumane. You could be just a few decades away from near-immortality, yet your only current option is to carry on - quite possibly to be destroyed by dementia/cancer/general age. So what we should be doing is freezing people. Cryogenic preservation is 'getting there' in terms of what we can and can't freeze and revive, and if we restrict the problem to the brain only, it's not *that* far off. The real problem is that at the moment we wait for people to die before attempting cryopreservation, which kind of misses the point. Really, we should be offering this as an option to anyone getting to the age of 70, or with a terminal diagnosis (cancer/heart failure/dementia/etc) where waiting could easily cause irreversable information-loss in the brain. This would have the effects of 'clearing the decks' of a lot of people who would otherwise suffer hugely and expensively. And hopefully they would be 'reborn' 100 years hence in a new body with any illness cured. What a nightmare, being 'reborn' into a world where you don't know anybody and haven't a clue about anything. Being born in such a situation only really works if you're a baby. I often wonder what people who died say 100+ years ago would make of the world if they could see it now, at least in towns and cities. They'd probably think it was hell on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'd love to see the UK govt roll this one out. No, we're not going withdraw free bus passes. We're actually going to kill you and chop your head off. That's OK, we'd just get Nick Clegg to announce it. Or pledge NOT to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 What a nightmare, being 'reborn' into a world where you don't know anybody and haven't a clue about anything. Being born in such a situation only really works if you're a baby. Of course, you family would either still be alive, or would *also* be reborn. I often wonder what people who died say 100+ years ago would make of the world if they could see it now, at least in towns and cities. They'd probably think it was hell on earth. Depends who it was. They'd probably think that many things were miracles.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilf Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Depends who it was. They'd probably think that many things were miracles.. Was going to say the same, initially shocking but full of wonder and none of the horrors of the past. Through most of history it's been a terrible existent for your average person. Basic shelter, almost no food, terrible water and the chance of catching something very minor but deadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Well the OP clearly regards the elderly as people who 'clog up' houses, and freezing is his sociopathic 'solution' to this 'problem'. An alternative scenario: People pay to have themselves frozen, to be thawed out at a later date. To do this, it must be funded, by some sort of investment. The investment will never match the costs perfectly, as the investment performance and future costs are both unpredictable. Scene in 2071: "Shall we thaw him out?" "No, we are making more money keeping him frozen." -or- "Shall we thaw him out?" "No the money's run out. No cash to cure him or keep him frozen. Just switch him off." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 There isn't an age/care/pensions crisis. It's complete and utter nonsense. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yeah would be a great idea to "freeze" people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Boy Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yeah would be a great idea to "freeze" people. and save on the £200 annual heating allowance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 and save on the £200 annual heating allowance. The big freeze questions would be: - would people trust the freezer company to actually keep them frozen - would relatives want visitation rights to check - would anyone notice the storage facility never got bigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 "Shall we thaw him out?" "What? We've only just finished paying off the debts he left us, and you want to bring him back? F*** off." -or- "Shall we thaw him out?" "No, I've just worked out that that debts he left us exactly cancel the money he left to operate the freezer, switch him off." -or- "Shall we thaw him out?" "No, he may be carrying lots of diseases that we have eradicated." -or- "Shall we thaw him out?" "Don't be silly. Now get back to work, we've another 37,459 people to freeze today." -or- "Shall we thaw him out?" "What? And if things go wrong? I'm not risking a lawsuit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 Well the OP clearly regards the elderly as people who 'clog up' houses, and freezing is his sociopathic 'solution' to this 'problem'. Sociopathic? Let's imagine it the other way around: We 'froze' people as a matter of routine. However, someone comes along and decides that we shouldn't do this, we should allow people instead to die in whatever painful and drawn out way that nature has in store for them. Paid for out of our estate whether we like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendy Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 What a nightmare, being 'reborn' into a world where you don't know anybody and haven't a clue about anything. Being born in such a situation only really works if you're a baby. I often wonder what people who died say 100+ years ago would make of the world if they could see it now, at least in towns and cities. They'd probably think it was hell on earth. Watch Encino Man actually don't, it's pretty crap by and large. However, DO READ host by peter james - still possibly the best book I have read to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 The big freeze questions would be: - would people trust the freezer company to actually keep them frozen - would relatives want visitation rights to check - would anyone notice the storage facility never got bigger .. and was located next to the Tesco Value sausage factory .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Ok. So, as we all know, the ageing population is going to cause crises in care funding and pensions, and meanwhile lots of old people are clogging up houses.. But it's worse than that. Assuming technological progress continues, within 50-100 years it is (fairly) reasonable to imagine that all of today's diseases will be curable, or at least fixable, including general aging to some degree. After all, if you can grow a new body in a vat - which should not be a vast problem - then the only organ you need to be able to fix is the brain. Against this background, the idea that we are allowing people to grow very old and die seems pretty inhumane. You could be just a few decades away from near-immortality, yet your only current option is to carry on - quite possibly to be destroyed by dementia/cancer/general age. So what we should be doing is freezing people. Cryogenic preservation is 'getting there' in terms of what we can and can't freeze and revive, and if we restrict the problem to the brain only, it's not *that* far off. The real problem is that at the moment we wait for people to die before attempting cryopreservation, which kind of misses the point. Really, we should be offering this as an option to anyone getting to the age of 70, or with a terminal diagnosis (cancer/heart failure/dementia/etc) where waiting could easily cause irreversable information-loss in the brain. This would have the effects of 'clearing the decks' of a lot of people who would otherwise suffer hugely and expensively. And hopefully they would be 'reborn' 100 years hence in a new body with any illness cured. OK. How are their assets distributed while they are in suspended animation? How will they afford to live when they come back and what happens to the inheritance after all the freezer bills are paid? Let them die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 OK. How are their assets distributed while they are in suspended animation? How will they afford to live when they come back and what happens to the inheritance after all the freezer bills are paid? Let them die. Let them spend a year dead for tax reasons.. seriously, it would have to be treated as death. The state could easily afford to run the facilities with the savings made, compared to the medical/care bills from keeping them alive. I'm assuming that by the time we have the tech to bring them back, the question of resources will be basically fixed and work will be essentially voluntary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 What a nightmare, being 'reborn' into a world where you don't know anybody and haven't a clue about anything. Being born in such a situation only really works if you're a baby. I often wonder what people who died say 100+ years ago would make of the world if they could see it now, at least in towns and cities. They'd probably think it was hell on earth. Funny enough after the first episode of Ripper Street I remarked that the time when it was set was less time before I was born than the time since I was born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 There isn't an age/care/pensions crisis. No crisis at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Sociopathic? Let's imagine it the other way around: We 'froze' people as a matter of routine. However, someone comes along and decides that we shouldn't do this, we should allow people instead to die in whatever painful and drawn out way that nature has in store for them. Paid for out of our estate whether we like it or not. Your 'clog up' comment reveals your true attitude to the elderly and the real reason you want them out of the way. Yes. Sociopathic, dressed up as altruist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 How about turning old people into high protein food tablets to sell to third world countries, like the UK. What's an old person's carcass worth? Couple of hundred quid? Doubt the organs are worth much. I had some American whittering on about how death had become optional for the rich... funny where are these rich old people? Maybe all the obits are fakes and they are living on some island somewhere. Or on an ark ship bound for another planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 How about turning old people into high protein food tablets to sell to third world countries, like the UK. What's an old person's carcass worth? Couple of hundred quid? Doubt the organs are worth much. I had some American whittering on about how death had become optional for the rich... funny where are these rich old people? Maybe all the obits are fakes and they are living on some island somewhere. Or on an ark ship bound for another planet? It isn't optional.. that's the problem.. (Post Friday lunchtime drinks rant to follow) I realize that the whole concept is quite scary.. and the idea that this (freezing) would be forced on people even more so. But I would also submit that Nature is pretty scary too. I'm now 39; if I'm really lucky, I'll be able to double my age whilst retaining my physical and mental independence. And then the best I can hope for is that I will suddenly drop dead, without going though a long period of physical pain, or mental disintegration, during which time my entire estate gets spent on keeping me alive (quite possibly disregarding my own wishes in the matter). That's what Nature has in store. I do not find this particularly attractive. Set against this, the idea that at the moment of diagnosis I could choose to say goodbye, and be put into the freezer with at least some hope of future resurrection - with at least some relative present - seems quite benign. It's certainly a lot better than Dignitas. (Note, of course, the voluntary nature of all this. I really, really would not make this compulsory!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.