Low Cost Cryonics

Over the years some cryonics proponents have expressed interest and support for offering an inexpensive form of cryonics. Before discussing what such a form of cryonics might entail I first would like to briefly address the question of whether the idea of low cost cryonics is a solution to a non-existent problem. After all, for low cost cryonics to make sense, there must be a substantial number of people being priced out of cryonics arrangements who would make arrangements if it were more affordable. For this to occur a person must not only not be able to afford Alcor’s services but also not be able to afford the Cryonics Institute’s either. As far as I am aware, this problem is mostly confined to people who are basically uninsurable due to a medical condition or advanced age, or who wish to cryopreserve someone else where funding is insufficient.

In some cases, however, people who have found themselves priced out of cryonics arrangements have been the beneficiary of fund raising campaigns within the cryonics community. While it may not be possible to provide funding for all such cases, this development does raise the question of how many people who had a strong public desire to be cryopreserved did not get their wishes honored. The major reason to advocate low cost cryonics is to bring the service within the reach of more people. Thus it is important to understand how many people are actually excluded from being cryopreserved due to financial challenges. If access to cryonics is mostly a non-issue one might argue that strategies to simply aim at more people making cryonics arrangements can be more effective than offering lower priced options.

There are roughly three areas where cost savings can be realized in cryonics: (a) long term care costs, (b) cryoprotection, and (c) standby and stabilization. It is not possible to do justice to all the potential cost savings in these areas so let me briefly discuss the major themes.

While it is reasonable to assume that some long term care costs can be reduced by reducing expenses associated with running a cryonics organization (staff, administrative costs, rent) the bulk of long-term care expenses arise from the need to keep patients in cryopreservation until resuscitation efforts will be possible. If there is one thing we have learned since the early days of cryonics it is that it is not wise to compromise on demanding pre-payment (life insurance or cash) or to use wildly optimistic growth assumptions for these funds. A pay-as-you-go system would not just subject many patients to premature thawing but also endanger the reputation of the cryonics field as a whole.

This mostly leaves cryoprotection and standby services as potential cost saving measures. Clearly, offering standby and stabilization without subsequent cryoprotection would be an incoherent approach because attempts to preserve the viability of the brain would be followed by straight freezing. Offering sophisticated cryoprotection procedures without standby is not particularly logical either because optimal cryopreservation requires rapid stabilization and cooling after clinical death. To really realize substantial cost savings a cryonics organization would need to exclude both standby and cryoprotection from its protocol and focus on the isolated brain. Is it responsible for a cryonics organization to offer such a form of low cost cryonics? It is hard to answer this question because it is difficult to predict how much damage is still compatible with inferring the original state of the brain. One research program, however, that could give us preliminary answers to such questions is reconstructive connectomics. We can model these low cost cryonics protocols and then see if we can recognize or reconstruct the original structure of the brain using either conventional electron microscopy or more recent 3D brain mapping technologies. If this project provides reasons for optimism there is a strong ethical argument for an organization to offer this service.

In short, the most credible realization of “low cost cryonics” would entail a financially conservative cryonics organization that offers secure, isolated-brain cryopreservation without standby and without the state-of-the-art
cryoprotection now done at Alcor with a trained team, though a less training-intensive, inexpensive, method of cryoprotection (immersion of the brain in cryoprotectant after chemical fixation) might still be possible.

Originally published as a column (Quod incepimus conficiemus) in Cryonics magazine, March, 2014

Forever Lost? The First Cryonics Brain Repair Paper

For more than a year now I have been trying to locate Jerome B. White’s paper “Viral Induced Repair of Damaged Neurons with Preservation of Long Term Information Content.” This paper is referred to in a number of books and articles, including Robert Ettinger’s Man into Superman (1972), Eric Drexler’s Engines of Creation, and Mike Darwin’s biological repair proposal in his article The Anabolocyte (1977). Despite being recognized as the first presentation about repair of the brain of cryonics patients, I am not aware of any actual quotes or discussion of the paper, raising the question of how many authors who have referenced the paper have actually read it. The best I have been able to find is what amounts to the complete abstract of the paper in Robert Ettinger’s Man into Superman:

“An organic cell is a self repairing automaton, but if environmental interference exceeds a certain limit, damage will become total. Freezing can be used to halt progressive damage along with all metabolism, but means are required to restore or augment the cellular genetic control program, or enrich the environment to enhance repair ability. It has been proposed that appropriate genetic information be introduced by means of artificially constructed virus particles into a congenitally defective cell for remedy; similar means may be used for the more general case of repair. Progress has been made in many relevant areas. The repair program must use means such as protein synthesis and metabolic pathways to diagnose and repair any damage. Applied to brain neurons, this might destroy long term information content, which appears to be stored in molecular form, often suggested to be in a feedback cycle involving mRNA and protein. This information can be preserved by specifying that the repair program incorporate appropriate RNA tapes into itself upon entry and release them on termination of repair.”

Jerome B. White’s paper was presented at the Second National Cryonics Conference in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1969. Unfortunately, only the proceedings of the First Annual Cryonics Conference in 1968 have been made available as a book. We can state with reasonable certainty, though, that White spoke on this topic at the second conference because Saul Kent briefly mentions his presentation in a review of the conference for Cryonics Reports, April-May 1969. Even more intriguing, the reference for this paper in Man into Superman includes “reprints available [emphasis added] from the Cryonics Society of Michigan,” which provides evidence that this presentation was either transcribed or an actual paper was prepared prior to or after the conference. Notwithstanding this encouraging point, I have not been able to locate this paper so far, despite asking individuals such as Michael Darwin, Michael Perry, Stephen Bridge, and Catherine Donaldson. Could it be possible that a paper was produced and distributed on a small scale but no copies of the paper have survived? This would be a tragedy, especially in light of the fact that it was the first proposal for a cell repair machine to resuscitate cryonics patients.

One person we cannot consult is Jerome Butler White (b. 1938) himself. The “good” news is that Mr. White has not passed away but, after a struggle with AIDS, was cryopreserved in 1994 by the American Cryonics Society (ACS) in collaboration with BioPreservation. (He is now stored at the Cryonics Institute.) Some of his other presentations include “The Technology of Cryonic Suspension,” Cryonics Conference and Scientific Congress, San Francisco, 1971, and “Heat Flow in the Human Patient,” Lake Tahoe Life Extension Festival, 1985. In the internet age it is hard to imagine that any information can be lost forever but we cannot rule out here that only a few individuals who have heard this presentation in 1969 are still alive today (some who have made cryonics arrangements) and that all physical copies may have been (irretrievably) lost. If that is the case, the text of this first paper on viral cell repair of cryonics patients will never be known and we can only speculate on its contents based on the abstract and any recollections of people who were present. One cannot think about this scenario and fail to reflect on the fragile nature of the personal memories stored in our own brains….

Note added by Mike Perry: Someone I know who is a prominent cryonicist thinks he has notes or text for the speech that was given by Jerry White at the 1969 Cryonics Conference. I have been waiting for the scanned document and will report when something comes to light.

Originally published as a column (Quod incepimus conficiemus) in Cryonics magazine, February, 2014

Postscript: Jerome White’s paper was (re)discovered by Art Quaife in September, 2014 and published in Cryonics Magazine, October, 2014. The paper is now available online here.

The Case for Brain Cryopreservation

Cryopreservation of just the head is as old as Alcor itself. In fact, some people identify Alcor with its “neuro-preservation” option. It is important, however, to recognize that the objective of preserving the head is really to preserve what is inside the head, i.e. the brain. While I am aware of (contrived) technical arguments that prefer head preservation over brain preservation for information-theoretical reasons, I suspect that no advocate of neuro-preservation is anxious about the prospect of having only his/her brain preserved in a pristine state.

This raises an important question – one that is not immediately evident to the general public. Why not just preserve the naked brain instead? I am aware of at least three major arguments against it and I think that these arguments are based on incomplete information or a lack of imagination.

Myth 1: The isolated brain is not a stable organ and will collapse upon itself in a jellylike state if it is removed from the skull.

Answer: In human cryopreservation the brain would only be extracted at low temperatures which provide a lot more stability to the brain. In addition, in a good case the brain will also be loaded with a cryoprotectant and exist in a dehydrated state, which will provide even more stability.

Myth 2: Removing the brain from the skull will damage the brain and will erase identity-critical information.

Answer: It is correct that morticians typically remove the brain with little regard for its ultrastructural integrity but there is no reason why a cryonics organization should engage in such traumatic brain removal. Safe brain removal protocols are technically possible and cryonics organizations have a strong incentive to develop and refine such techniques.

Myth 3: The skull is necessary to provide protection to the brain.

Answer: It is undeniable that the skull provides robust protection to the brain but from that it does not follow that a cryonics organization cannot design a long-term enclosure and maintenance method that provides strong protection of the naked brain, too.

I do not claim that brain preservation is equal in all respects to neuro-preservation. For example, extraction of the brain from the skull requires additional time after completion of cryoprotectant perfusion and during this time the brain will be exposed to high levels of cryoprotectant (strictly speaking, isolated brain perfusion is possible but this requires a very advanced surgical procedure). Keeping the brain temperature low and uniform during brain removal is also a challenge.

On the other hand, there are potential advantages as well. An isolated brain can be placed in the cryoprotectant to allow diffusion of the vitrification agent prior to cryogenic cooldown to compensate for any ischemia-induced cortical perfusion impairment. In fact, if perfusion is no longer an option, immersion of the (fixed) brain in cryoprotectant is the only means to mitigate ice formation during cryostasis. Another advantage is a decrease in long-term care costs (at least 50%), which allows for lower cryopreservation minimums.

But the most important advantage of brain preservation is that public perception and negative PR would be substantially lower than that with neuro-preservation. Even if the procedure were a little riskier (technically speaking) one could still argue that it is safer in general because images of cryopreserved brains do not risk the kind of visceral response that neuro-preservation triggers.

I cannot do justice to all the technical, logistical, and financial issues associated with brain-only cryopreservation here but the topic requires more study for the reason alone that cryonics organizations occasionally receive fixed brains, or patients with long ischemic times, for whom immersion cryoprotection could be superior to straight freezing. Brain cryopreservation does not exist as an option yet, but it has been the reality for a number of patients.

Originally published as a column (Quod incepimus conficiemus) in Cryonics magazine, January, 2014

Who Decides What We Can Do With Our Body (and Brain)?

Statement on the High Court ruling concerning 14 year-old cancer victim’s right to cryonics

Click here for PDF

Our hearts go out to the young British woman whose battle with cancer ended sadly earlier this month at age 14, as well as to her parents as they cope with this very difficult time. And we commend the British High Court Judge for his important ruling enabling the girl to obtain her wish to be cryogenically preserved. While we have no comment on the specifics of this case, and do not ourselves offer services of this nature, we hope we can shed some light on the project of experimental medical biostasis / cryonics more generally.

Over the past decade, scientists have made significant advances in low-temperature biology, and scientists developing molecular machines will receive this year’s Nobel Prize on December 10. Many, including scientists at places like Cambridge, Oxford, MIT, NASA and Harvard, now openly support cryonics as a legitimate scientific endeavor. Of course there is no guarantee that any cryonics patients will be revived in the future, but as discussed by four tenured professors in this recent MIT Technology Review piece, the best evidence suggests that cryonics deserves open-minded consideration.

Coordinator of the UK Cryonics and Cryopreservation Research Network, Dr João Pedro de Magalhães, when asked for his thoughts, observed that “no matter the probability you assign to the procedure, we think it’s important to give people the choice, just as we give dying patients the opportunity to try other experimental medical therapies to save their lives”.

Cryonics is a similar experimental treatment, albeit one with different legal and ethical implications, and whose probability of success is unknown. Many parts of the world are now taking progressive stances towards the idea of death with dignity. It seems incongruous with these beliefs to stigmatize a procedure for what is at worst an over-optimistic belief about the state of the future.

Despite the many intermediate successes in low-temperature biology over the past few decades, no cryonics organization can currently revive a patient. Nobody has claimed otherwise, and arguments based on this premise are missing the point.

Cryonicists look at how medicine has progressed over the past hundred years, at the millions of people whose lives would have been cut short if not for advances in technology, and it fills them with hope about what might be possible for the future. The goal of cryonics is not to be able to revive someone with contemporary technology, rather the goal is to preserve a person and her brain well enough that future technologies may be able to (repair and) revive the person. One can think of this as transporting the body forward through time or as medical time travel. This depends on technologies that will be developed in the next decades or centuries, not on the world’s capabilities today. All the major cryonics organizations in the western world are non-profits with the goal of surviving for centuries.

As Aschwin de Wolf, President of The Institute for Evidence-Based Cryonics, explained, “Cryonics is based on the premise that the neuro-anatomical basis of identity is more robust than folk wisdom suggests, and we envision future technologies that can infer the healthy state of the brain from the injured state – and even repair any damage that occurs during the cryopreservation process itself. As such, cryonics is not an act of faith, but an act of reason.”

We will cure cancer one day, and it is reasonable for this girl, born too early through no fault of her own, to choose for herself the best chance to make it to that world where more is possible.

Contact / interviews:

Dr João Pedro de Magalhães

Coordinator, UK Cryonics and Cryopreservation Research Network

+44 151 7954517 / aging@liverpool.ac.uk

www.cryonics-research.org.uk

Aschwin de Wolf

President, Institute for Evidence-Based Cryonics

contact@evidencebasedcryonics.org

www.evidencebasedcryonics.org

Appendix of key supporting materials

  • “The patient should participate responsibly in the care, including giving informed consent or refusal to care as the case might be…The patient’s right is based on the philosophical concept of respect for autonomy, the common-law right of self-determinationAmerican College of Physicians Ethics Manual, 2016

Advances in Cryoprotectant Toxicity Research

There is little disagreement among cryobiologists that the biggest limiting factor to reversible organ cryopreservation is cryoprotectant toxicity. It is actually not that hard to create vitrification solutions that completely inhibit ice formation at even the slowest cooling rates. The problem is that such highly concentrated vitrification solutions are too toxic to permit recovery of complex tissues. The least toxic vitrification solution for complex mammalian organs as of writing is M22. M22 is the culmination of many years of experimental and theoretical work by cryobiologist Greg Fahy and colleagues using rabbit kidney slices. Studying selected cryoprotectant mixtures on rabbit kidney slices, Fahy and colleagues came to the following conclusions:

1. High concentrations of a cryoprotective agent (or a mixture of different cryoprotective agents) can prevent ice formation during cooldown and warming.

2. The toxicity of some cryoprotectants can be neutralized by combining them with other cryoprotective agents.

3. The non-specific toxicity of a  cryoprotectant solution can be predicted by calculating a quantity (“qv*”) which is intended to measure the average hydrogen-bonding strength of the cryoprotectant polar groups with the water molecules in the solution.

4. Within limits, non-penetrating agents can reduce the exposure of cells to toxic amounts of cryoprotectants without reducing vitrification ability.

5. Synthetic “ice blockers” can be included in a vitrification mixture to reduce the concentration of toxic cryoprotective agents necessary to achieve vitrification.

While M22 is a low toxicity solution, its toxicity profile still necessitates minimizing exposure time and introduction and removal at low (subzero) temperatures. If we had a better understanding of the mechanisms of cryoprotectant toxicity, vitrification solutions with no toxicity at all could be introduced at higher temperatures and exposure times could be increased to optimize complete equilibration of the tissue with the cryoprotectant. It would also allow safer storage at intermediate temperature temperatures (around -130 degrees Celsius) because ultra-stable vitrification solutions could be used that are less prone to de-vitrification upon re-warming. This would be of particular interest for the cryopreservation of large organs or even whole organisms (with applications such as suspended animation and cryonics).

Two major reviews of cryoprotectant toxicity were published in the last 5 years; Gregory Fahy’s “Cryoprotectant Toxicity Neutralization” (Cryobiology, 2010) and Benjamin Best’s “Cryoprotective Toxicity: Facts, Issues, and Questions” (Rejuvenation Research, 2015).

Greg Fahy’s paper is a rigorous exposition of experimental results concerning the phenomenon of cryoprotectant toxicity neutralization. The paper is mostly limited to the discovery that DMSO can block the toxic effects of amides such as formamide. The combination of DMSO and formamide (or other amides such as urea and acetamide) is indeed one of the building blocks of M22 but this combination cannot be used without limit and the paper includes data that indicate the maximum molar concentrations (and ratios) that still permit full viability. In theory, if two (or more) cryoprotectants would completely neutralize each other’s toxicity they could be the sole components of a vitrification solution. But as the formulation of M22 shows, it is still necessary to add weak glass formers such as ethylene glycol, extracellular CPA’s, and “ice blockers” to supplement the toxicity neutralization obtained with formamide and DMSO. An important finding in Fahy’s paper is that n-methylation abolishes toxicity neutralization for amides and combining methylated amides also does not lead to toxicity neutralization between them. In fact, Fahy found that the presence of n-methylated compounds renders even small amounts of DMSO toxic. The remainder of the paper discusses the mechanisms of cryoprotectant toxicity and Fahy now favors protein denaturation as a plausible mechanism of (non-specific) toxicity. While other cases of toxicity neutralization have been reported in the literature, no rigorous studies have been done to produce a body of knowledge that is comparible to what we know about amide-DMSO interactions.

Benjamin Best’s paper is more general in scope but presents a lot of experimental data and also critically discusses Fahy’s work on cryoprotectant toxicity. As Ben Best points out, different (and seemingly contradictory) results do not necessarily mean that cryoprotectant toxicity is a species or cell-type dependent phenomenon. One could imagine a meta-analysis of cryobiology data in which variables such as concentration, loading- and unloading protocols, exposure temperature, exposure time, and the type of viability assay are matched to ensure methodological consistency. It is also important to compare cryoprotectants at their minimum concentration to vitrify to make meaningful toxicity comparisons. If the work at 21st Century Medicine is an indication, universal low-toxicity cryoprotective solutions should be feasible. Perhaps the most interesting part of the paper is where Best offers a critique of Grag Fahy’s “qv* hypothesis of cryoprotectant toxicity”, which aims to show that non-specfic toxicity concerns the degree to which cryoprotectants leave water available to hydrate macromolecules. This discovery allowed for the substitution of ethylene glycol for propylene glycol in Fahy’s lower toxicity vitrification solutions, despite the resulting higher CPA concentrations. Best observes, “it seems contradictory that water remains available for hydration, but not available for ice formation.” A potential rejoinder to this observation is that so called “bound water” does not participate in ice formation but can be disturbed by strong glass formers. Best also suggests a potential refinement of qv* that allows for more precise calculation of the hydrogen bonding strength of the polar groups that are used to calculate qv*. It is conceivable that such a refinement would eliminate the few remaining outliers in the data that support the qv* hypothesis. The paper also draws attention to the possibility of kosmotropic co-solvents and changes of pH and microenvironment polarity to mitigate cryoprotectant toxicity.

Neither of the papers discusses cryopreservation of the mammalian brain, but there is good reason to believe that in the case of this organ modification of low-toxicity vitrification solutions is required. Conventional cryoprotective agents such as PG, EG, and DMSO have poor blood brain barrier (BBB) penetration and the brain may not tolerate the CPA exposure times that other organs do. For example, while M22 can be used for cryopreservation of the brain, many of its component have poor BBB penetration and PVP and the ice blockers (X-1000 and Z-1000) are assumed not to cross the (non-ischemic) BBB at all. One potential solution is to (reversibly) open the BBB with so- called BBB modifying agents like detergents or perhaps to search for cryoprotective agents that can cross the BBB.

The most fundamental question in the design of vitrification solutions remains whether it is possible at all to introduce high concentrations of cryoprotectants without creating any kind of irreversible molecular and ultrastructural adverse effects. Understanding what specific and non-specific cryoprotectant toxicity exactly is should enable us to answer this question.

Originally published as a column (Quod incepimus conficiemus) in Cryonics magazine, September-October, 2016

Groundbreaking Scientific Results Prove that the Proposition of Human Medical Biostasis has Potential and Needs to be Brought into Mainstream Scientific and Medical Focus

Breaking News [Media Press Package with additional detail]

A team from 21st Century Medicine has developed a technology that has been independently verified to enable near-perfect, long-term structural preservation of a whole intact mammalian brain.

This new breakthrough just won the Brain Preservation Prize – five years after it was launched by the Brain Preservation Foundation (BPF).

“One of the, if not THE, most important scientific results in the history of medical biostasis and cryonics has been accomplished” Aschwin de Wolf, President of The Institute for Evidence-Based Cryonics

According to the BPF, 21st Century Medicine narrowly beat a team led by Dr. Shawn Mikula at the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology (published last year in Nature Methods).

In addition to proof of this accomplishment and the full 21st Century Medicine “Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation” protocol recently being published in the journal Cryobiology, it was also independently verified by the BPF through extensive electron microscopic examination.

 

 

 

 

 

The prize was independently judged by neuroscientists Dr. Sebastian Seung, Professor at Princeton University and Dr. Kenneth Hayworth, President of the BPF.

“Imagine being able save, and at low temperatures, indefinitely preserve people who can no longer be sustained by contemporary medicine so that future medicine can both revive them and restore their health – these results provide strong support of that being possible”

Dr. JP de Magalhães, Chair of the UK Cryonics and Cryopreservation Research Network

This follows recent scientific evidence that long-term memory is not modified by the process of whole organism cryopreservation and revival in simple animal models.

As the two leading think-tanks/scientific networks in cryonics we share here a brief with both more color and our perspectives on what this important breakthrough means and – does not mean – for cryonics. 

In the words of Dr. Ken Hayworth, President of the Brain Preservation Foundation, and one of the prize judges:

“Every neuron and synapse looks beautifully preserved across the entire brain. Simply amazing given that I held in my hand this very same brain when it was a vitrified glassy solid… This is not your father’s cryonics”

Recent developments relevant to cryonics

A lot of interesting pieces related to cryonics have appeared over the last few months that I thought I would share:

Four professors conclude in MIT Technology Review that there is significant and growing body of evidence in support of human cryopreservation: “The Science Surrounding Cryonics” 

New York Times Cover story by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist on “A Dying 23 Year Young Woman’s Hope in Cryonics and a Future”

Skeptic Michael Sherman writes a piece in Scientific American called  “Can Our Minds Live Forever?”

Here are three recent important peer reviewed papers:

Dr. Greg Fahy and Robert McIntyre of 21st Century Medicine describe here a new cryobiological and neurobiological technique, aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation (ASC), which demonstrates the relevance and utility of advanced cryopreservation science for the neurobiological research community. The ASC technology is now also competing against Dr Mikula at Max Planck in he brain preservation prize.

The Grand Challenges of Organ Banking and It’s Potential is described by large group of the worlds leading cryobiology scientists:  The first Organ Banking Summit was convened from Feb. 27 – March 1, 2015 in Palo Alto, CA, with events at Stanford University, NASA Research Park, and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. Experts at the summit outlined the potential public health impact of organ banking, discussed the major remaining scientific challenges that need to be overcome in order to bank organs, and identified key opportunities to accelerate progress toward this goal. Many areas of public health could be revolutionized by the banking of organs and other complex tissues, including transplantation, oncofertility, tissue engineering, trauma medicine and emergency preparedness, basic biomedical research and drug discovery – and even space travel.

Persistence of Long-Term Memory in Vitrified and Revived Caenorhabditis elegans. Two scientists ask the question:  “Can memory be retained after cryopreservation?” and then demonstrate that a form of long-term memory in C. elegans is not been modified by the process of vitrification or slow freezing.

Cryonics as a measure of rationality?

Most cryonics advocates are often frustrated by the amount irrationality, ignorance, and hostility when other people encounter the idea of human cryopreservation. It should not be surprising then that some of us have simply concluded that most people “just don’t get it.” Which raises an important question. Is making cryonics arrangements a strong measure of rationality? After all, a close examination of Alcor members indicates that most of them are highly educated, a disproportionate number of them have PhDs, and their backgrounds are often in fields where strong analytic skills are required; computer science, neuroscience, biochemistry, etc. Another indicator is that cryonics is relatively popular in communities with a high proportion of “nerds.” In fact, a number of “leaders” in the “rationality” community (Robin Hanson, Eliezer Yudkowsky) have cryonics arrangements and have made public arguments in favor of cryonics. In short, someone who has made cryonics arrangements is not prone to short term gratification and minimizes cognitive biases, one could argue.

The problem with this characterization of cryonics as a measure of rationality is that it does not explain why the overwhelming number of people who can be considered highly analytical or rational have not made cryonics arrangements. Many cryonicists are smart but most smart people are not cryonicists. To explain this we will have to look elsewhere.

The 18th century skeptic and analytical philosopher David Hume once wrote that “reason is a slave to the passions.” In the case of cryonics, no matter how smart a person is, if the person does not have a passion for life (and an aversion to death and aging) that person will not be primed for an enthusiastic personal endorsement of cryonics. Closely related to having a desire to live and to pursue life extension is a an optimistic temperament. A cryonicist is not necessarily “wildly” optimistic, but (s)he should at least think that life is worth living and not be prone to thinking about the future in dystopian terms. I am also inclined to think that such a person is prone to think “like an economist” (to use Bryan Caplan’s phrase). With this I mean that a person can think in a probabilistic manner, does not see the world as a “zero-sum game,” and sees developments like automation, computerisation and biotechnologies in a positive light.

Do these combined traits produce a favorable attitude towards cryonics? This still cannot be the complete story because the traits discussed so far are shared by many millions of people in the world and support for cryonics is extremely small. I want to single out two additional traits that are usually required to prime someone for cryonics. The person also needs to be a non-conformist of some kind. When cryonics is as small as it is, strongly endorsing cryonics makes someone stand out (to put it mildly). And this “standing out” is not comparable to just having a bizarre hobby or a strange sense of style. It can sometimes produce confusion or hostility in other people, which can turn even our most life-affirming friends and family into apologetic pro-mortalists.

The most important trait, in my opinion, and the one that really distinguishes the cryonicist from the non-cryonicist, is the ability to deal with vulnerability, uncertainty and the unknown — in some cases, to even welcome it. People who have been around in cryonics for awhile know that ultimately (that is, when you dig a little deeper) skeptics are really afraid to be resuscitated in a distant and unknown future. This should not be easily dismissed. Personal identity is not identical to the brain or the body (as a simplistic version of cryonics would have it) but extends to all the things and people that have become part of a person’s life. To many people, the cryonics proposal means  survival at the cost of losing everything that gives meaning to their lives.

If we look at the limited acceptance of cryonics from this perspective, does this inspire optimism in persuading more people? An immediate response would be negative because fundamental character traits are hard to change. Another approach, however, is to change the conceptualization and delivery of cryonics so that these fears are not triggered. In particular, it might serve a cryonics organization well to transition from an organization that just “stores” a human body or brain without specific resuscitation and reintegration scenarios to an organization that offers more comprehensive means of identity preservation. Such an organization puts a strong emphasis on the cryopreservation of families and friends. It will offer means of asset preservation and personal belongings. It develops specific resuscitation protocols which are updated and calibrated as our knowledge and technologies improve. And it makes serious efforts to provide a reintegration program which seeks to minimize adjustment to the time in which an individual is resuscitated.

Is endorsement of cryonics a measure of rationality? Yes, but without a desire to live, a reasonably optimistic attitude, an independent mindset, and, most of all, confidence in a cryonics organization to preserve all that is important to a person, being smart by itself is not going to do it.

This is a web-exclusive edition of the Quod incepimus conficiemus column that is published in Cryonics magazine but was omitted from the April 2015 issue.

Alcor vs Disintegration

This article was previously published in Cryonics Magazine, May, 2013

In this short article I will discuss two distinct developments in contemporary cryonics that are setting the stage of how cryonics is going to be practiced in the foreseeable future.

First, there is the recognition that the most formidable obstacle for people to make cryonics arrangements is not scientific or technological, but psychological. We know this because people tell us so. It is a form of anxiety about the future and social alienation that is even a concern for people who have made cryonics arrangements. Ignoring this and/or telling people to “toughen up” is simply not an effective response.

Second, there is an increasing interest in long-term wealth preservation among people who have made cryonics arrangements and this interest is no longer confined to wealthy Alcor members. In addition, there is also a growing interest in preserving biographical information, ranging from personal memories to tangible objects. This development can reflect a desire to prevent “disintegration” (see Keegan Macintosh’s excellent article in this magazine) during cryostasis or may be motivated by the use of such information for damage repair or validation of resuscitation attempts.

It seems clear to me that these two developments are closely associated and that Alcor can address the desire of their members to preserve biographical information, remain “connected” and make cryonics a less anxiety-inducing choice at the same time.

In the April 2013 issue of Cryonics magazine Mike Anzis contributed a useful review of very long-term storage alternatives for personal information and materials and all these options have their pro’s and con’s. I suspect that many people not only have reservations about the long-term survival of many of the organizations and companies reviewed, but also have concerns about privacy and the alignment of the goals of these entities and the objective of personal survival.

While it is unrealistic to expect that Alcor can be involved in all matters concerning personal data storage and reintegration (there is an argument for diversification and redundancy, too) it seems rather obvious that Alcor has a more substantial role to play than it does today. It needs to play a substantial role if we want Alcor to be perceived as an organization that does not just see reversible cryopreservation and rejuvenation as a technical problem to be solved, but one that will also do its best to give its patients a face, maintain the social integration of its patients, and facilitate means to protect personal assets and personal information.

I cannot do justice to the practical aspects of this objective in this short article but let me conclude with a number of specific suggestions.

We do not know whether email in its current format will still exist in the future but we do know that Alcor owns a domain name and can issue email addresses to their cryopreservation members and provide secure storage of email messages.

We do not need to speculate as much about the nature and compatibility of very long-term data storage technologies if Alcor starts offering such services and will ensure to upgrade them as times change. In addition, Alcor can allow its members to securely edit their personal information and medical records to allow for a better response in time of need.

Alcor can hardly compete with social networking platforms such as Facebook and Google+ but we can make an effort to offer individual members the opportunity to create a private or public online profile that will be retained after cryopreservation of the member, and that can perhaps even be updated by Alcor, family, and friends.

The benefits of such changes are greater than just offering Alcor members more opportunities to retain personal information, prevent disintegration, and more strongly identify with their cryonics organization. By giving our members a visible place and the tools to remain relevant we will also communicate to the rest of the world that we are serious and that we will not let our members slide into oblivion – even during cryostasis.

Cryonics and Natural Selection

“…it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself” so reads a quote that, in modified form, often has been mistakenly attributed to Charles Darwin but was in fact a description of Darwin’s views penned down by a Professor of Management and Marketing named Leon C. Megginson in 1963. But, surely, one reason for the popularity of this quote is that it captures the modern view of evolution quite well. In this column I would like to briefly reflect on what cryonics means in the context of evolution and natural selection.

Any cryonicist that has not kept his support of cryonics completely to himself must have found himself in a situation where even the most reasonable arguments seemed to leave someone else completely indifferent, or even hostile. Even in the case of family members or friends there comes a point where one cannot help thinking, “well, if you would rather die than think, fine, I am not going to stop you.” It appears, then, that people who make cryonics arrangements are part of an extremely small group of people that will escape the common fate of all humans (i.e. death), as a consequence of being extremely open-minded and adaptable.  But is this the “survival” that the theory of natural selection speaks of?

The modern theory of natural selection is essentially about reproduction. It is not necessarily the longest-lived species (the survivors) whose (genetic) traits will become more common in a population but the ones whose fitness leads to greater reproductive success. It can hardly be denied that cryonicists are extraordinarily capable of adapting to change (or ready to adapt to future change) but it has also been quite firmly observed that cryonicists (or life extentionists in general) are lagging the general population in terms of reproduction, either because of the higher number of single persons or because of the lower interest in having children. It is sometimes observed that whereas most people seek “immortality” by ensuring their genes will survive in future generations, cryonicists see immortality by seeking to survive themselves. In addition, even allowing for a growing interest in cryonics, the number of people making cryonics arrangements is simply too small to have a meaningful effect on the genetic and mental traits of future generations. At best, cryonicists may find themselves being perceived as independent, courageous, individuals that were simply more capable of anticipating the future of science and medicine.

It is tempting, indeed, to think of cryonicists as a homogeneous group of people who are extraordinarily analytic and adaptable but a closer inspection of the motives of people who make cryonics arrangements suggests something different. Indeed, if we look at the early days of cryonics, we see a disproportionate number of cryonicists who where extraordinary visionaries, sometimes independently arriving at the same conclusions (think of Robert Ettinger and Ev Cooper). As cryonics received more mainstream exposure, however, we see different reasons why people endorse cryonics. A partner has cryonics arrangements and the other person is persuaded to do so, too. Subcultures in which making cryonics arrangements is strongly endorsed (like transhumanism). A strong fear of death that prompts a person to do anything to not die, regardless of a dispassionate assessment of cryonics. In more recent times, even career considerations can be a factor as more “market-based” salaries are available in the field of cryonics. Still, despite the possibility that the personality type that chooses cryonics is increasingly getting more diverse, it still makes sense to talk about the demographics of cryonics for as long as the cryonics population is substantially different from the general population.

Where does all this leave us concerning cryonics and natural selection? Since natural selection is basically about reproductive success despite death it would not be correct to characterize the small group of cryonicists that will survive (where others do not) as an example of Darwinian evolution in action, I think. It may be tempting to use Darwinian terminology to characterize our situation but upon closer scrutiny there are problems with this. What might be said, though, is that (successful) cryonicists will be in the extraordinary situation to live for such a long time that they can see human evolution further unfold and even be in a position to consciously direct it through human enhancement.

This is a web-exclusive edition of the Quod incepimus conficiemus column that is published in Cryonics magazine but was omitted from the December 2014 issue.