←back to thread

Doctors' estimates of the feasibility of preserving the dying for future revival

(www.medrxiv.org)
55 points arielzj | 7 comments | 08 Dec 25 22:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
michaelt ◴[08 Dec 25 22:48 UTC] No.46198721[source]▶
When it comes to cryopreservation the thing I find infeasible is the idea a provider would bother with the preservation, under the incentives of capitalism.

If someone pays millions of dollars to a company that promises to freeze their corpse for 200 years, the company can simply freeze the corpse for a decade or two, take the millions of dollars as dividends and executive bonuses, then declare bankruptcy. The dead can't sue.

replies(8): >>46198876 #>>46198898 #>>46198909 #>>46198935 #>>46198967 #>>46198974 #>>46199539 #>>46205255 #
1. adastra22 ◴[08 Dec 25 23:01 UTC] No.46198876[source]▶
These aren’t companies doing the patient storage. It is non profits setup and run by people who are signed up themselves.
replies(3): >>46198913 #>>46198919 #>>46199899 #
2. ◴[08 Dec 25 23:05 UTC] No.46198913[source]▶
3. FridayoLeary ◴[08 Dec 25 23:05 UTC] No.46198919[source]▶
It's basically the same thing. What's stopping them from eventually losing interest or the non profit getting hijacked. I personally think the whole thing is a huge waste of money and i can imagine some guys in 50 years will think so too.
replies(1): >>46200134 #
4. michaelt ◴[09 Dec 25 00:47 UTC] No.46199899[source]▶
Wasn't OpenAI a non-profit?
replies(2): >>46200679 #>>46205263 #
5. adastra22 ◴[09 Dec 25 01:16 UTC] No.46200134[source]▶
That they and the people they care about are stored there. This is a far stronger incentive than any profit motive.
6. adastra22 ◴[09 Dec 25 02:45 UTC] No.46200679[source]▶
The second part of that sentence was the important bit.
7. IAmBroom ◴[09 Dec 25 14:29 UTC] No.46205263[source]▶
And since all things under that umbrella are exactly the same...