The continued unpopularity of cryonics

I am a cryonics adherent, since it is the best chance I know of to return from the dead. My personal experience with open discussion of my arrangements to be frozen when I die, instead of buried or burned, is that it makes most people slightly uncomfortable. Many of them feel the need to condemn, dismiss or at least display incredulity. Most people fear anything that doesn’t fit into what they have been taught.

Aschwin de Wolf has written an article called Why is cryonics so unpopular? wherein he speculates that perhaps it is the very fact of thinking about one’s own mortality makes most people so uncomfortable that keeps the rolls of those signed up to be cryogenically preserved so low. He speculates other reasons as well:

In his 1998 essay “The Failure of the Cryonics Movement” (part 1, part 2), Saul Kent stresses that cryonics has remained so unpopular because nobody thinks it will work. One observable implication of this view is that we would expect to see broader acceptance of cryonics as its technical feasibility increases. Unfortunately, there is not much evidence that this is the case. During its existence a number of research and technical breakthroughs have been achieved in areas such as normothermic and hypothermic resuscitation, cryopreservation, and long term care, that should strengthen the case that cryonics will work. In particular, the change from conventional cryopreservation to vitrification should have appealed to critics who questioned whether the neurological basis of identity can survive freezing. But the transition to vitrification did not have any noticeable effects on membership growth at Alcor, or later at the Cryonics Institute. In 2007, researchers at 21st Century Medicine announced that they were able to observe long-term potentiation (LTP) in vitrified brain slices, further supporting the claim that current cryonics procedures should be able to preserve the physical basis of memory.

De Wolf makes a great point in noting that terminally ill people are often willing to undergo experimental treatments, sometimes of very dubious nature, in order to extend their lifespans, or just in hopes of doing so. If people saw cryonics as an experimental treatment for extending life, maybe they would react differently to the idea.

Meanwhile, I figure being frozen is better than being burned up or rotting in the ground.

Similar Posts:

• Five dangerous ideas about cryonics
• Afraid of a long happy life?
• More on Singularity University; is the curriculum appropriate?
• Blue Zones finds places where people live longest
• Smart people live longer