« Parsing Paulson | Main | Taliban v. Coase »
Who wants cryonics?
Arnold Kling reports:
[Robin] Hanson says that the expected return from being cryonically frozen is positive. If it works, the benefits are high, and the probability of it working is greater than zero. Yet few people sign up for it. I think that we are afraid of looking weird if we sign up for it.
I wonder if people who already look weird, for whatever reason, sign up at disproportionate rates. I suspect not and that only some very particular preexisting unusual traits predict an interest in cryonics. Is the best predictor of signing up is interest in science fiction? If so, does this mean that the non-signers are simply people who are not able to imagine the potential benefits? Or does an interest in science fiction already label the person in some way where the marginal image cost of signing up is then especially low? Both cryonics and science fiction of course have very high rates of male participation, some exceptions aside. I predict that the reading of fantasy novels does not so well correlate with interest in cryonics, once you adjust for any prior interest in science fiction.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 14, 2008 at 07:25 AM in Science | Permalink
Comments
I'm not suggesting causation, but of course a disproportionate number of people who sin up for cryonics already "look weird". You really suspect not?
I imagine people who do not sign up for cryonics have already invested in some rationalization about the goodness or necessity of death, decreasing the benefit for them.
Posted by: josh at Jul 14, 2008 8:45:18 AM
Hanson's construction is identical to Pascals's wager. Which raises the question, under what conditions does one find Pascal's wager type constructions convincing?
Posted by: Cyrus at Jul 14, 2008 9:04:21 AM
You're making "signing up" for cryonics sound as if it was some low-cost personal choice. But surely the ongoing annual maintenance costs of cryonic freezing are significant: storage, energy, rock-solid emergency generators and staff on standby.
You need to have the financial means to buy yourself a perpetual annuity. I suspect the eccentric childless millionaire demographic is overrepresented. Who else can afford it?
Posted by: at Jul 14, 2008 9:07:32 AM
I don't think it is about looking weird. I think if science fiction is associated with higher signup, it is primarily through higher estimates of probability of success of cryonics. Whether SF readers are better or worse informed I leave to you.
Posted by: paul at Jul 14, 2008 9:21:51 AM
What are the real survival rates? IE how many people have been sucessfully revived after having been frozen? Even, how many chimps.
Posted by: Eric Bloodaxe at Jul 14, 2008 9:30:12 AM
Isn't this argument somewhat similar to the argument of why one should believe in a religion that rewards it followers in the afterlife?
Posted by: JoshT at Jul 14, 2008 10:02:11 AM
Maybe it correlates with religion. The male-female ratio of atheists tends to suggest that males are more likely to be atheists. Or perhaps the field of science itself which tends to be more male dominated. Even then, you’ve already narrowed it down to a very small field of likely consumers.
Unless you want to inevitably die since there’s no cure for ageing- yet- cryonics is your best bet. But it's not like this is something you can sign up for and buy on Amazon. I think the reason few people sign up for it is:
1)There’s very little actual support for it. When you die you need to get your body frozen immediately. It’s not like there are cryogenic centers on every corner.
2)It still costs a fortune. And the only way to get a discount is to only have your head frozen. That only makes the whole thing even less unsettling.
3People don’t really even know about it. It’s not like the field of death prevention in science is exactly a thriving enterprise, mostly due to no success rate.
Posted by: Daniel Corradi at Jul 14, 2008 10:02:43 AM
What's the opportunity cost?
It really really makes sense that your chance of cryogenic revival are far better if you aren't actually dead before you get frozen. How many people do it alive? Any?
All the money you put into being cryogenicly frozen is unavailable to your relatives. Do you discuss this with your wife before she reads the will? Do you get her frozen if she dies first?
What about the kids? "I'm sorry, we don't have any money to put you through college because we need it so Dad can be cryogenicly frozen when he dies and maybe someday he'll wake up again. We don't know whether it will work but Robin Hanson says the expected return is positive."
Posted by: J Thomas at Jul 14, 2008 10:52:11 AM
Call me weird, but someone explain to me why cryonics isn't a solution to the healthcare cost crisis?
I would think there is a high correlation with people who know they are dying soon.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 14, 2008 11:11:26 AM
Yeah, the probability of it working is greater than zero in the same way that the probability of me discovering I have superpowers in the next ten minutes is greater than zero. The freezing process, as we can currently manage, destroys the brain cells; no-one has the slightest idea how that might be overcome. When you can freeze someone and keep their brain intact, then there might be some reason to try cryogenics.
But, really, even if the medical aspects are flawless, you're paying a lot of money to bet that the company that freezes you remains solvent until we learn to cure whatever it is that killed you. If they can't pay the electricity bill, You die.
And even if they survive, and you wake up in the future with no assets and no marketable skills, what then?
Posted by: wintermute at Jul 14, 2008 11:32:24 AM
I agree with winterminute. The freezing process requires the draining of all your blood -- you die. You are not "flash-frozen" while alive. I think most people who would believe that reanimation might be possible in the future also believe that when the brain gets emptied of all of its blood, then that's pretty much it, and any attempt to "re-animate" you will not necessarily reconstruct your consciousness.
Posted by: Bandwagon Smasher at Jul 14, 2008 11:51:16 AM
I've seen some work on cryogenic cell preservation from the folks at Fraunhofer IBMT, who really care about maximizing yield of frozen cells. Once you see what even very careful freezing (never mind thawing) does to cells, you'll agree the chances of this working are zero.
Combine that with the opportunity cost (non-zero except in cases of extreme narcissism) & it just seems like extreme narcissism. Which is why people think it is weird.
Posted by: msi at Jul 14, 2008 11:55:06 AM
The Pascal's Wager comparison doesn't really hold, because PW can be rebutted by noting that you could just as well end up worshipping a false god and be punished by the correct one in the afterlife. There's no equivalent for cryonics, except perhaps the assumption that you'll wake up in a horrible dystopia (but the probability of the people in a horrible dystopia caring enough to bring back the dead seems pretty low).
As for whether freezing kills brain cells - well, for one, cryonics doesn't freeze bodies, it vitrifies them - replaces part of the water in the cells with protective chemicals, so that no freezing occurs, preserving the structure. Vitrified kidneys have been successfully recovered. Whatever the probability of successful recovery becoming possible is, it sure is a lot bigger than the probability of suddenly getting superpowers.
Posted by: Kaj Sotala at Jul 14, 2008 12:22:06 PM
I'm not even convinced the expected return is positive?
Suppose the people of the future revive you only to torture you endlessly for their entertainment?
Posted by: Jens Fiederer at Jul 14, 2008 12:25:33 PM
Kaj Sotala:
Changing the chemical composition of brain cells is exactly as destructive as regular freezing; or does Alcor also keep detailed notes about the exact concentration of each specific ion in each brain cell so that future scientists can rebuild the electrochemical potentials exactly as they were?
Short answer: Have Alcor (or any other company) successfully preserved and restored a mammalian brain and had its owner survive the experience? Do they have any idea how such a thing might be possible? Nothing in the sites you linked to suggests that anyone can answer "yes" to those questions.
Sure, the osmotic membranes in your kidneys might still be working after you're thawed out, but if your brain has been filled with antifreeze that doesn't really do you a lot of good.
Posted by: wintermute at Jul 14, 2008 12:33:43 PM
Looking weird to others isn't the only obstacle - there's maintaining one's own self-image as a non-kook.
It still costs a fortune.... I'm sorry, we don't have any money to put you through college.... You need to have the financial means to buy yourself a perpetual annuity. I suspect the eccentric childless millionaire demographic is overrepresented. Who else can afford it?
How many people do it alive? Any?
Suppose the people of the future revive you only to torture you endlessly for their entertainment?
Do you really believe this is nearly as likely as a positive revival?
Posted by: Nick Tarleton at Jul 14, 2008 12:35:33 PM
The radio show "This American Life" had an amazing episode on early cryonics:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1239
If you listen, you won't think of cryonics in the same way ever again.
Posted by: at Jul 14, 2008 12:38:44 PM
or does Alcor also keep detailed notes about the exact concentration of each specific ion in each brain cell so that future scientists can rebuild the electrochemical potentials exactly as they were?
Do they have any idea how such a thing might be possible?
See "How can imperfect preservation be reversed?", this page, and the cited works.
And even if they survive, and you wake up in the future with no assets and no marketable skills, what then?
Better than certain death, and it seems a good bet that any future able and willing to revive you will be rich enough not to make this a huge problem.
Posted by: Nick Tarleton at Jul 14, 2008 12:41:40 PM
I think most people look weird, and especially those who care about 1) looking weird and 2) don't care about cryonics.
Posted by: Paleohawk at Jul 14, 2008 12:43:16 PM
Yes, it would.or does Alcor also keep detailed notes about the exact concentration of each specific ion in each brain cell so that future scientists can rebuild the electrochemical potentials exactly as they were?Would that be necessary?
You see how that link says that memory depends on brain chemistry? Well, if you take 60% of the water-soluble chemicals out of the brain and replace them with something else (as Alcor claims to do), then you're going to have problems putting them back again when you're ready.
Yes, they've had wonderful success with hypothermia, but that doesn't involve radical changes to brain chemistry, and so is irrelevant.
See "How can imperfect preservation be reversed?", this page, and the cited works.So, their answer is "um, nanotechnology, or something"?
Of course, without a good map of what the chemical composition of each cell was before freezing, it's moot, but just saying "dude! It's the future! They'll work something out!" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Cryogenics will get exciting when a mammalian brain is preserved for a significant amount of time and then restored to full functionality. From the links to Alcor that people have provided, they clearly have no idea if anyone will ever figure out how to restore their clients.
Posted by: wintermute at Jul 14, 2008 12:53:44 PM
or does Alcor also keep detailed notes about the exact concentration of each specific ion in each brain cell so that future scientists can rebuild the electrochemical potentials exactly as they were?
The goal is to preserve the person, not his exact mental state at the moment of death. For that, it should be sufficient to preserve the overall structure of the brain. Alcor reports that for patients preserved with post-2001 techniques, "whole neurons are visible with intact membranes and well defined structure". They also have a published study in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences reporting excellent preservation of the brain.
Short answer: Have Alcor (or any other company) successfully preserved and restored a mammalian brain and had its owner survive the experience?
Not yet.
Do they have any idea how such a thing might be possible?
Yes.
Posted by: Kaj Sotala at Jul 14, 2008 12:58:59 PM
Not yet.
(At least I don't recall off-hand that they would have, and didn't find any such mentions on their website - though note things such as "dogs and cats have recovered excellent brain function after 16-60 min of complete cerebral ischemia" in the linked article.)
Posted by: Kaj Sotala at Jul 14, 2008 1:02:06 PM
One of the most important reasons why so few people make cryonics arrangements appears to be that cryonics implies resuscitation in a far and unknown future,perhaps even without most family and friends.
Posted by: megapolisomancy at Jul 14, 2008 1:02:11 PM
Question for Tyler and the readers: What things correlate with interest in Science Fiction? It could be positive or negative.
I start:
1. The belief (and emotional desire) that the so-called singularity is likely to occur.
2. Gender.
3. Discomfort with holding contradictory beliefs.
Second question: "A" supports free-market capitalism, "B" supports communism. Who is, ceteris paribus, more likely to have an interest in science fiction?
Sorry for the digression.
Posted by: londenio at Jul 14, 2008 1:24:16 PM
The goal is to preserve the person, not his exact mental state at the moment of death. For that, it should be sufficient to preserve the overall structure of the brain. Alcor reports that for patients preserved with post-2001 techniques, "whole neurons are visible with intact membranes and well defined structure". They also have a published study in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences reporting excellent preservation of the brain.OK, let's put it like this:
Neurons work by exchanging ion solutions that alter the electrical potential of each individual brain cell. That precise level of electrical potential in each cell is what defines who you are. More importantly, it's the biggest single difference between you and a corpse.
Sure, future scientists might have enough know-how to be able to make your brain work again, on a basic level, but without knowing which atoms go where, and exactly how much charge each individual cell had, the resulting person will not be you.
As an analogy, we have the ability to chop DNA up into individual codons, and to put them back together again. But if someone were to disassemble your DNA without keeping a map of what it had looked like assembled, and then put it back together, they may well end up with a human (assuming that's their goal), but the result will not, in any respect, be you.
Do they have any idea how such a thing might be possible?Yes.
Sure, their answer is "It's the future! They'll have magic robots that can repair the damage we're doing!", which is not so much a potential solution as a hope that someone else will come up with a potential solution. And it still ignores the basic fact that the future scientists will have no idea what state they're trying to restore.
Let me say it again: destruction the isochemical balance of braincells cannot be repaired by any currently known or imagined technology. They have had success with reducing brain function in animals to zero for an hour, but this did not involve removing and replacing chemicals within the braincells, and is therefore not relevant to their preservation method.
I have seen nothing on their website that indicate that they think the brain is any more complex than a kidney. They think that so long as gross structural damage to cells is minimised, then there's going to be no problem in thawing people out, even if everything inside the cell wall is replaced with antifreeze.
Maintaining the delicate balance of soluble chemicals is of the utmost importance, if you want to end up with a functional brain. Alcor's techniques are clearly far more sophisticated than those of Egyptian embalmers, but they're basically making the same mistake of thinking that the brain (or at least, its constituent chemicals) is this big mass of pudding that doesn't really do anything, and can be safely removed. Five thousand years ago, this belief was defensible. Today, though...
Posted by: wintermute at Jul 14, 2008 1:37:22 PM
