I was wondering why there isn't more talk of cryogenics in a forum such as this. I'm sure there are plenty of topics related to cryogenics both directly and indirectly that very relevant to the topics that are generally discussed in this forum. Let's not let good minds go to waste.
Huh?
I really don't see the connection between Austrian Economics and preserving a dead body by freezing it in liquid nitrogen.
Or, as Six would say, death is what defines us as a living being.
We could always talk about the property rights involved in cryonics. How exactly would someone contract with another individual in order to, let's say, acquire his property upon reanimation?
I support the right of Cryogenics businesses to exist but right now it seems to be along the same level of scientific validity as mumification was in ancient Egypt. We assume that "frozen" means preserved for later use just as the Pharoes thought that making human jerky out of themselves would lead to an enjoyable afterlife.
Of course I want to be cryogenically frozen ...but I am not deluded into thinking I can come alive later by doing it but I want to do it so I can freak people out years from now and have them speculate on curses, me getting up and shambling around on a quest for some 21st century object like a Blackberry.
I want to inspire the campiness of future generations.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
pazlenchantinrocks: We could always talk about the property rights involved in cryonics. How exactly would someone contract with another individual in order to, let's say, acquire his property upon reanimation?
I don't see the sense in cryogenics now, honestly. "Those who fight for the future live in it today"; not "those who fight for the future freeze themselves & wait for the future to come to them while being at the mercy of external forces beyond their ability to cope with while they are frozen in time."You are right though that a discussion could be conducted around cryogenics, though. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it was already covered elsewhere.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
pazlenchantinrocks: I was wondering why there isn't more talk of cryogenics in a forum such as this. I'm sure there are plenty of topics related to cryogenics both directly and indirectly that very relevant to the topics that are generally discussed in this forum. Let's not let good minds go to waste.
All the guys who wanted to talk about cryogenics have been frozen and put into orbit until 2150. Maybe you could leave them a list of topics for when they de-thaw.
There could be some way to preserve the body in a favorable legal setting that helps lessen the risk of the corpse not making it to an attempted reanimation.
"To get there, you have to demonstrate viable science, not just speculation that at some time in the future science will advance to the point of being able to re-animate frozen bodies."
Why must one "demonstrate viable science?" And to what standsards should they be demonstrable? Is demonstration necessary if certain contractual arrangements could be made that would preserve the body in a more favorable legal setting?
"It would be like me getting an injunction from anybody selling my house after I die because my disembodied spirit will still lurk there and have rights of possession."
Does this "injunction" have to take place AFTER you die? And who first mentioned anything about disembodied spirits lurking around and having rights of possession?
"This is entirely speculative, and courts are going to defer to the apparently real: that I am dead and buried and the living have a greater claim."
If there are contractual obligations to meet, what does "speculation" have to do with anything? What do the living have a greater claim to? If the corpse is owned by someone who wishes to keep it, then where is the problem?
"You can have the fanciest, most complex contract in the world but without a living, breathing plaintiff it's just paper."
Ok, but I thought that was obvious. What I'm interested in is how a body could be owned in a manner that would help legally assure safekeeping to what extent it is possible, e.g., how one comes to acquire the ownership of the remans of our unfortunate individual, owning shares in a "corpsicle" , and/or a company might hold the remains while other parties retain certain rights and/or how other parties may transfer those rights, etc.
"The dead have no rights. They can't give testimony, they can't satisfy a judgment, etc. Now, you may very well find someone willing to safeguard your frozen corpsicle but if he runs out of money or gets tired of lugging you around, then your corpsicle is SOL.""
Sure, it is possible that the remains could end up in a situation that would be unfavorable to safekeeping. That is one of the risks involved in investing in such an endeavor. Then again, I don't think anyone here is willing to assert that it would be impossible for such an investment to pay off somehow in the end, given the proper circumstances. If so, I would love to hear it.
Byzantine: You can have the fanciest, most complex contract in the world but without a living, breathing plaintiff it's just paper. The dead have no rights.
You can have the fanciest, most complex contract in the world but without a living, breathing plaintiff it's just paper. The dead have no rights.
The whole point is that they're not dead.