Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Become Your Own Heir After Being Frozen

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the what-could-go-wrong dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 375

destinyland writes "A science writer discovered it's possible to finance your cryogenic preservation using life insurance — and then leave a huge death benefit to your future thawed self. From the article, 'Most in the middle class, if they seriously want it, can afford it now. So by taking the right steps, you can look forward to waking up one bright future morning from cryopreservation the proud owner of a bank account brimming with money!' There's one important caveat: some insist that money 'will have no meaning in a future dominated by advanced molecular manufacturing or other engines of mega-abundance.'"

cancel ×

375 comments

You're playing their game (5, Interesting)

Raindance (680694) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126204)

Given the assumption that cryogenic revival will be possible, this may work in principle-- but the insurance industry doesn't exactly function on immutable code-like rules that can be hacked for fun and profit.

It's much more a game-- and moreover, the game is owned by the insurance industry. You're just playing it. And if you figure out a particularly good trick to beat the house, they're either going to rationalize why certain technicalities mean they don't need to pay you (and thus 'easy money' becomes 'try to drag deep-pocketed defendants into court'), or they'll simply change the rules before you're revived, and you won't have been able to do anything about it because you were dead.

From a what-do-you-have-to-lose perspective, sure, it's worth a shot. But this simply can't be a dependable part of estate planning.

Re:You're playing their game (5, Insightful)

Lupulack (3988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126238)

On the other hand, it appears that investing my cash in these companies in the business of bilking the terminally optimistic of their earnings *could* be a fine way to ensure my comfortable retirement. Thank you stupid wealthy people!

Re:You're playing their game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126240)

I'm not really sure what the problem is. If you die any life insurance had gets paid out to your estate at the time of your death. The insurance company is no longer involved in what happens to the money after that point. What rules could they change in the time between your death and revival that could get them the money back? If your will instructs that you be frozen and the money be put in savings account to wait for you, why couldn't you do that? There's no free money. In general life insurance, as with all insurance is not profitable to individual, you will on average put in more money than you get out (this is how insurance companies make money).

Re:You're playing their game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126262)

If your will instructs that you be frozen and the money be put in savings account to wait for you, why couldn't you do that?

Note that dead people can't own property. So unless you carefully set up some kind of trust with a dependable organization to "own" the savings for you, you can't do this.

Re:You're playing their game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126570)

Also, if you're getting frozen, with obvious intent (it's in your will!) to get the money, isn't that insurance fraud and they don't have to pay anyway? Sort of the same as trying to acquire a bunch of insurance and then committing suicide..

Re:You're playing their game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126684)

maybe the insurance companies can sue you if you come back to life.

Dead don't inherit... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126274)

At present, there's no way to thaw a living human after deep freezing. With present day technology, deep frozen person means dead person (not just "mostly dead", either).
Frozen meat can be cooked after thawing, so somebody in a dystopian future might benefit...

Re:Dead don't inherit... (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126692)

And yet, they'll still be able to vote. How interesting.

Re:You're playing their game (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126482)

If you are indeed dead enough to qualify for a payout, then you are presumably too dead to be considered a survivor.

Kinda like trying to let your unborn child inherit your fortune.

1) Dead and unable to claim inheritance because of not being a survivor
2) Alive and unable to trigger a payout

Re:You're playing their game (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126728)

If you are indeed dead enough to qualify for a payout, then you are presumably too dead to be considered a survivor.

Kinda like trying to let your unborn child inherit your fortune.

1) Dead and unable to claim inheritance because of not being a survivor
2) Alive and unable to trigger a payout

3) For ethical reasons, your great-great-grandchildren must give permission before you can be thawed out. And reclaim their inheritance.

Re:You're playing their game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126530)

I think this is pretty straightforward:

1) File life insurance claim due to your appointment to be frozen next Tuesday
2) Get frozen
3) Life insurance company denies claim until it can be ascertained whether you will be brought back to life.
4) No money in account
5) Check bounces at freezer company
6) Freezer company threatens to pull plug
7) Insurance company transfers your body to a facility in Northern Canada (a field full of frozen bodies)
8a) Your body stays there till the sun dies
8b) Insurance company profits.

Re:You're playing their game (1)

gijoel (628142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126702)

That's why I'm investing in gold pressed latinum [memory-alpha.org]

Re:You're playing their game (4, Insightful)

The Wooden Badger (540258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126736)

The easy "out" would be that you weren't dead, and you owe them for unpaid premiums.

Money in the future (0, Flamebait)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126232)

If nanotech can manufacture anything, it's tempting to think there will be no money. But I can guarantee you that women will find a way to keep pussy scarce, artificially inflating the value. That's always going to be a currency.

Re:Money in the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126374)

What about artificial pleasure?

Re:Money in the future (4, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126524)

One word: Fembot.

Once a reasonable facsimile of a real woman happens (nowhere near there yet), the tables will likely be turned, and in a big way. And no this isn't some sort of weird geek fantasy talking.

Thing is, men and women behave differently. A male human being has to mature a whole hell of a lot before he begins to sexually appreciate a woman as more than a collection of pretty smells, nice curves, and a warm vagina. We guys (not universally, but on average) are driven sexually by our five senses (esp. vision) more than anything else. Women OTOH are driven by far more factors, and look for these factors far sooner than guys do. This is why a male sex robot is fairly useless (unless someone pops the Turing route a whole lot sooner than anyone expect, that is), while a fairly dumb female sex robot would happily be useful to an unfortunate majority of the male population.

Objectively, it would have a cheaper ROI, you can treat 'em like objects (guys have a history of that with real women anyway), and when you get bored with one, you can get another. There are faults with the theory, though. If you're turned on by, say, a woman's intelligence, you're going to be like most of the women out there - sorely disappointed. Besides, my missus wouldn't let me get one anyway. :)

Back to TFM's topic? Why take the risks of sending your wealth to your (probable) unrevivable corpse? Just have some of your stem cells frozen, then let 'em make a close of you, and give the money to the copy of you (it won't be you, but hey - at least your DNA can still have some fun with the dough). It's cheaper (way the hell cheaper), far more certain with today's technology than necro-cryogenics, and a handful of cells would take a lot less space than a whole frickin' corpsicle.

Re:Money in the future (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126542)

So what you're saying is that the singularity (I presume you're familiar with the term) will make my own "personal singularity time" a lot more fun? Cool!

Re:Money in the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126798)

One word: Fembot.

Once a reasonable facsimile of a real woman happens (nowhere near there yet), the tables will likely be turned, and in a big way. And no this isn't some sort of weird geek fantasy talking.

Thing is, men and women behave differently. A male human being has to mature a whole hell of a lot before he begins to sexually appreciate a woman as more than a collection of pretty smells, nice curves, and a warm vagina. We guys (not universally, but on average) are driven sexually by our five senses (esp. vision) more than anything else. Women OTOH are driven by far more factors, and look for these factors far sooner than guys do. This is why a male sex robot is fairly useless (unless someone pops the Turing route a whole lot sooner than anyone expect, that is), while a fairly dumb female sex robot would happily be useful to an unfortunate majority of the male population.

Your theory is shot down by the evidence. There are male sex robots for women: they are called "vibrators", and they massively outsell female sex robots for men (blow-up dolls).

Re:Money in the future (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126920)

Futurama highlighted your exact argument =)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dated_a_Robot [wikipedia.org]

Fry and the Lucy Liu robot begin dating, aided by her being programmed to like Fry. The other Planet Express employees, concerned about his relationship, show him the standard middle-school film (similar to Boys Beware) that predicts the destruction of civilization if humans date robots. Unfortunately, Fry ignores the movie and keeps making out with his Lucy Liubot.

eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (1)

reporter (666905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126248)

The ability to live forever is not necessarily something that everyone wants.

Suppose that you put yourself into cryogenic suspenion until the day that medical science is so advanced that it can revive you and restore you to the functionality of a 20-year-old adult. Would you want such a life? All your friends are dead. All the reference points -- music, politics, bridge game on Saturday, local Buddhist temple on Sunday, etc. -- that gave you a sense of fitting into your society are long extinct or dead. Would you want this life?

I would not. I would choose death with the people of my generation over eternal life without meaning.

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (1)

fucket (1256188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126270)

I'd probably just find a new bridge game.

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126288)

Can I have your lawn when you die? I promise to stay off it until then.

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126568)

...he could change his mind, then have that lawn frozen with him.

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126306)

If your friends got frozen also then that won't be an issue. A related question, if there were a serious apocalyptic event say a nuclear war or a zombie attack or what have you. Would you kill yourself if you turned out to be one of the survivors? I suspect not even if everyone you know is dead. Don't underestimate the human will to live.

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (4, Insightful)

Lupulack (3988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126314)

On the other hand, people in their 20s often pick up and go somewhere they know nobody, where the culture is very different and they have to pick up a whole new set of assumptions. It's called "college".

I think people in general are far more resilient than you give credit for, especially with the benefit of what would likely be advanced counselling methods.

Perhaps it's not to your liking, that's fine. Some people are more embedded in their world than others. I think I would manage fine, a whole new world to learn would be fascinating! Besides, you could likely still make the decision at that time that you didn't want to continue, no need to make it *now*!

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (2, Insightful)

mxh83 (1607017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126354)

My answer- "yes". I would give anything to experience the world 200 years from now even if it means starting off with nothing. And if I'm that disappointed with "social issues" there's always the option that exists today to end it. Don't generalize.

DNF (1)

owlman17 (871857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126462)

By then, we'd be playing DNF on ReactOS or Hurd 3.0, running on our mega-core phones.

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126562)

Dunno... it would still be fun.

Besides, if nothing else I could have a blast screwing with the heads of future historians.

("...of course, the fourth Nazi regime of Central California did try to establish a state religion. The dogma was a bit strange, but it went a bit like this..." [then I'd insert some real wild-assed stuff straight out of alt.slack's glory days] )

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (5, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126566)

Life without meaning? A new world with a new culture and new politics and new sciences and new games to learn?! Are you kidding! That would be the greatest thing ever.

Make new friends. Form a new family. Only this time if they can resuscitate a head then I'm probably nearly immortal so I have at least 10k years before I'm statistically killed in an accident. That's more than enough time to learn a few hundred lifetimes of insights.

So what you're saying is that if your family and friends all died in an accident you would want to die with them and no live your life? If you were orphaned and adopted by a foreign family you think life wouldn't be worth living or have meaning?

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (1)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126790)

Damn skippy I would, yes it would suck to lose people and there'd probably be some depression and disorientation and culture shock, but you'd be alive and vital to experience a whole new world instead of dead and rotting. Then again I don't assign special meaning to life beyond its experience, if I was very spiritual my answer might be different.

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (1)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126868)

Well, that's your choice.

I'm not particularly afraid of dying, but I'm also not afraid of living and experiencing new things.

As long as I'm reasonably healthy, I would like to go on. When I am seriously injured or sick, just let me die quickly.

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30127092)

Feel free to die then. Just don't imply some kind of immorality associated with not wanting to die [tvtropes.org] .

(Note: this comment doesn't necessarily assume that cryogenics represents a viable approach to life extension, but anything beats eternal nothing.)

Re:eternal life: "can" does not mean "should" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30127116)

Yeah. I'm not the least bit interested to see new tech, to learn new science.

I could never love a woman from another century -- that stuff only happens in movies. (Well, given that I'm on /., this may actually be true... ;))

Giving perspective and even completely lost information to historians and schoolkids? Man, that'd give my life practically negative meaning.

I don't think you've thought this through before you consigned this to "without meaning".

Haha (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126260)

More likely the criminals running the "deep freeze" will run off with your money and leave you to thaw out and rot in a mini-storage unit when all the LN2 in your dewer escapes.

They need to think about taking these people and placing them deep in a glacier or something, then maybe you have a chance of lasting for a while.

Corpsicle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126284)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpsicle [wikipedia.org]

I think Larry Niven's story says it all.

anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126286)

Great! no problem with the cash, if we are alive we'll surely think up something. If you have the brains, money is no problem.

Wemaster
www.thisismyindia.com

Completely impossible, reviving after freezing (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126292)

There are few things I consider impossible but reviving people after simple freezing is one of them. There's massive damage and it's still not cold enough to arrest decay. Even if you could freeze a body without damage you'd still need to be near absolute zero to arrest most of the breakdown. Freezing essentially explodes the cell walls so there's nothing to revive. Cloning is pointless because it's a middle aged twin at best with none of your memories and no you can't just program them in like a computer the memories are actual structures in the brain that involve growth. I'm not saying there won't be a way to place a body in stasis I'm saying current freezing technologies are at best a joke and at worst a scam.

Re:Completely impossible, reviving after freezing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126472)

I'm not saying there won't be a way to place a body in stasis I'm saying current freezing technologies are at best a scam and at worst a joke.

Fixed that for you

Re:Completely impossible, reviving after freezing (2, Interesting)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30127020)

Except they've been able to "freeze" then thaw rabbit kidneys. These kidneys were then placed into a living rabbit and they functioned rather well. With more research, I can see how this could be done to entire human brains, or even bodies.

Also note, the important part of the brain is the structure. As long as it's kept intact, the memories and personality remain intact as well.

Re:Completely impossible, reviving after freezing (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30127076)

  1. No-one's talking about "simple freezing". Techniques are considerably more advanced than that. Not that I'm saying they're advanced enough yet for revival to be feasible, but at least know a little about what you're criticising.
  2. Cloning is not a middle aged twin - well, not for 40 years or so anyway. It's a baby twin.

don't hold your breath (4, Insightful)

mxh83 (1607017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126294)

The future will likely disallow this kind of inheritance. The main problem with cryogenics right now is that it is not possible to undo the damage caused by the cryogenic procedure. People who have invested in companies like Alcor have done so in the belief that a solution will soon be available. As soon as that happens the world will see a new set of laws that take care of all these loopholes. I would image that they will make sure you don't wake up with an advantage you do not deserve x years into the future. It will be more about people wanting to experience the future than benefiting from it

Yeah right (2, Insightful)

Orionn2000au (1491623) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126302)

"some insist that money 'will have no meaning in a future dominated by advanced molecular manufacturing or other engines of mega-abundance."

Uh huh, sure. And we'll all have flying cars, and we won't need to work because we will have created new ways produce food. And there'll be no wars, and free ice-cream.

Re:Yeah right (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126616)

Why would we need any of those things? We want nice houses because we see nice houses and walk around in nice houses..... Matrix.

We want to buy nice foods because we enjoy the savory and delicious flavors that they let us experience... Matrix.

We want fast cars and sports equipment for excitement and thrills... Matrix.

We want nice clothes and fashionable cars for the way we appear... Matrix.

Augmented reality, or virtual reality will democratize property. You won't need a factory to build a Lamborghini it'll cost $45, the price of a video game. There is more than enough calories and nutrients to solve world hunger... we just view food as a taste not a supplement. Augmented reality can turn a bland flat wafer into anything you want it to be. All water can taste like coffee and be warm in your mouth and give you the effects of coffee if you want it to. But I'm sure there'll be easier ways with less side effects to keep you awake.

If you want your transit from one place to another to look and feel like it's in a flying car then feel free to choose that view from your seat in the supersonic maglev. Not sure what requires you to travel in the first place, but so be it if you must physically move from one place to another and can't use a proxy then I'm sure you have your reasons. Still a virtual meeting would be identical to your perception as a real one.

When you can augment reality and manipulate your own perception of the physical world--what's actually there becomes unimportant. Your clothes can be physically practical but as metadata be fashionable.

Key legal obstacle (5, Interesting)

Jacques Chester (151652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126320)

Before coming to my senses, I used to be a law student. Trusts, including estates, was probably my favourite subject. The main vehicle for transmitting wealth between generations is trusts, because they are reliable and well-understood.

However, in Australia, and other common-law countries such as the UK, Canada and the USA, trusts have a limited life-time. The basic principle is that the dead cannot rule the living. It's called the "rule against perpetuities". If trusts could last forever, more and more of the world's resources would be tied up in trusts with narrow aims and the eventually all the world would be divided between trustees and beneficiaries. So goes the argument, anyhow (this is different from conditional gifts and foundations, by the way, before you start yammering about scholarships and charitable organisations).

The lifetime of a trust is specified at its creation. In the old days you could make it $DEATH_DATE_OF_SOMEONE + 21 years. So you'd have stuff like "For the life of the Prince of Wales and 21 years", the theory being that it's easy to know when the Prince of Wales carks it. More recently, most jurisdictions have introduced legislation allowing an optional ability to simply fix some time period, usually up to 80 years.

And that's the problem. If you go into cryo-storage for 81 years, then on awakening you may find that your trust was dissolved and the benefits distributed to your descendants. And until it's proved that you can really come back from death via cryogenic storage, I'd be amazed if the courts changed their stance. Because too many people would try to break the rule against perpetuities by being "frozen".

Of course, IANAL, this isn't legal advice, YMMV yadda yadda.

Re:Key legal obstacle (4, Insightful)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126384)

Shouldn't this same line of logic apply to corporations and copyrights? Because right now, I would say the system is definitely breaking this "rule against perpetuities"...

Re:Key legal obstacle (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126638)

No. The law against perpetuities applies to conveyances of property from a grantor to a grantee. *Usually* this is in the context of a transfer via a will or through an estate.

Corporations are considered legal entities. Modern law does not require them to have a lifespan. Thus because an existing corporation is technically a "living person", there is no conveyance thus the rule against perpetuities doesn't apply.

Re:Key legal obstacle (1)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126466)

The rule against perpetuities is not as ironclad as it used to be in the classic common law times. There are a lot of statutory exceptions and some states have even completely abolished the rule.

I think the bigger problem is to find a way to make your re-created self be the beneficiary. There is absolutely no legal concept of someone dying and then reviving. And usually (although i am not 1oo% sure) if you make yourself the only beneficiary of a trust, the trust will get invalidated as a sham trust.

Oh yes, this is not legal advice.

Re:Key legal obstacle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126586)

This comment is a little misleading.

The rule against perpetuities is there in the modern era because it is thought that having inalienable inter-generational interests is a Bad Thing.
There are indeed four states that have "abolished" the rule (Alaska, Idaho, New Jersey, and South Dakota). However while there is no longer any kind of "within X number of years" limitations, there are still limitations on alienability. And that's what could eventually fuck you up. You may be required to have a provision that the manager of your ongoing trust "is allowed to buy and sell trust assets as they see fit." (it's a very common provision). This is all fine and good, until one of your dumbass heirs three generations down the line decides they want to liquidate the trust and invest in banana futures. There is no instrument or language that I am aware of that would prevent them from doing such a thing.

This article focuses on the financials of leaving money to a future cryogenic self. To me transferring wealth is not the issue. This can most likely be done through some sort of managed corporation (for instance, create and well-capitalize a corporation who's sole task to is to support your frozen ass. That is the stated purpose of the corporation within its charter. Assign a bank as director of the corp. etc).

The real issue to me is how to ensure that your *RIGHTS* to any future property are preserved. Let's say that you successfully setup a perpetuating cash source. Let's also pretend that 100 years from now they are able to bring you back. There is absolutely no guarantee at all that you will have any right to claim any of your money. Being technically dead, any contract you had has long since ended and is unenforceable. You can't claim any ownership of property, because you're dead. Sure, you have this nice charter saying that this is your money, but there is nothing stopping the bank from telling you to go drink lemonade and then throwing your frozen head in the trash.

The end result is that the other entity *could* give you the money that was agreed upon, but they aren't obligated to and you have no right to it. So now you're at their mercy to keep their word. That's a dangerous fucking place to be folks.

Re:Key legal obstacle (1)

Jacques Chester (151652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126926)

"To me transferring wealth is not the issue. This can most likely be done through some sort of managed corporation (for instance, create and well-capitalize a corporation who's sole task to is to support your frozen ass. That is the stated purpose of the corporation within its charter. Assign a bank as director of the corp. etc)."

That would be unlikely to work, IMO. Remember, trusts come from the *facts* of a situation, not merely from documents. A court could look at this scheme, reasonably conclude that it's a trust (someone holding common-law legal title to something with future-you as the beneficiary) and apply the rule against perpetuities. It's not as though people haven't tried for centuries to break that rule and failed.

" Being technically dead, any contract you had has long since ended and is unenforceable."

Which is another reason why the law of trusts would apply, not the law of contracts. But there would still be difficulty in assigning yourself as beneficiary post-death. You could make it a class trust (ie, "For the benefit of persons having this particular DNA ..." or "For the benefit of persons knowing this 16 digit password"), but that would probably get shot down as too general, or perhaps, too obviously specific.

Trusts are hard to game because they spring from equity, and equity is not a rigid system of logic like a computer program. It is specifically flexible and based on judicial discretion to slap down people who try to game the common law.

hidden treasure then (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#30127060)

Convert what you can to gold and hide it somewhere, hopefully some place that won't be discovered for the next 1000 years, I guess that would be the difficulty.

I predict that there will be a bank, maybe in Switzerland, maybe some place else, that will provide services helping the folks like that to hide their money, including from the law of other countries, for a percentage of annual interest perhaps.

Re:hidden treasure then (1)

JimboG (1467977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30127126)

The way gold prices are going these days that sounds like a good idea. There are a lot of remote places in the world that you could bury it too. Its just a pity that I don't think the technology to 'unfreeze' all these cryogenic heads will ever exist, no matter what Futurama tells us.

There's an easier way (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126322)

Just leave 93 cents in the bank. After 1000 years accruing interest you'll have 4.3 billion dollars.

I do suggest changing your PIN number though, just in case.

Re:There's an easier way (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126352)

I'd like a cheese pizza and a large soda, please.

Re:There's an easier way (3, Insightful)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126392)

...and with the way inflation works, your 4.3 billion dollars will buy you half a slice of bread once you've been thawed.

Re:There's an easier way (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126470)

no, in some bizarre twist, everything will cost the same it does today. Guh!

Re:There's an easier way (1)

lee1026 (876806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126488)

Historically, real interest rates (the nominal interest rate - inflation) have been about 2%. So in 1000 years, that 93 cents will be worth about 370 million in inflation adjusted terms. A respectable sum.

Re:There's an easier way (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126734)

Historically, real interest rates (the nominal interest rate - inflation) have been about 2%. So in 1000 years, that 93 cents will be worth about 370 million in inflation adjusted terms. A respectable sum.

Depending on inflation. Has there yet been a bank or currency which has lasted that long?

Re:There's an easier way (1)

Jardine (398197) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126852)

Depending on inflation. Has there yet been a bank or currency which has lasted that long?

Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena was founded in 1472. So halfway there.

Re:There's an easier way (2, Insightful)

tomtomtom (580791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30127124)

Has there yet been a bank or currency which has lasted that long?

Gold. Plus, if you get gold coins rather than bullion there's a chance that that they will acquire rarity value over 1000 years (due to the milling, engraving etc) over and above the value of the base metal itself and so enhance your rate of return. Ancient coins still have a high value attached to them despite the empires to which they belonged being long-dead.

Re:There's an easier way (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126898)

I had $25 left in a bank account for a couple of years. The bank ate it all up with service charges until the balance went negative and then when I didn't pay the bill they closed out the account and said I was lucky they didn't come after me.

Fuck the banks. I can't wait for the economy to totally crash and for all the monkey men and monkey women in suits to flip out and destroy themselves. Sure, I'll probably die myself, but I'm going to go laughing while pointing out that I told them so.

(Nah. I'll probably be a chump and provide comfort like I always seem to do in person. I just wish people would grow a few extra brain cells and get a clue or two so I won't be the only one not flipping out when the whole thing goes to shit. That Swine Flu idiocy was a great indicator of what you can expect from the populace, and that was threat-level "kindergarten". The people you think are smart but who fell for the H1N1 mind game are exactly the people who are going to totally lose their fucking minds when the sky actually falls. Total liabilities.)

-FL

Remember what happened to Fry (5, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126338)

Just be prepared for what is bound to happen. Your bike will likely get stolen.

Re:Remember what happened to Fry (1)

Hitokiri Battousai (702935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126750)

And your dog will die :(

Re:Remember what happened to Fry (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30127100)

The ending of that episode with Fry's dog in front of the pizza place was actually a tearjerker... dog ages, lays down, closes eyes, The End. How sad!

hah.. (4, Interesting)

okmijnuhb (575581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126368)

Your cryogenic machine will be unplugged by some of the 78 trillion inhabitants of earth and your body will be used for food. Power shortages will have already rendered your flesh ripe and unpalatable, but you will be consumed regardless.
But worry not, your fortunes would have been confiscated by the corrupt state, and were you to be revived, you would owe a small fortune for the "maintenance" of your rotted corpse, despite the fact that your machine has too been cannibalized for it's parts and scrap.
Had you awoken in the future, you'd have felt you left a virtual paradise, for a poisoned and hellish war zone, your debilitated body and mind only barely aware that the band of rogues that revived you only did so for profit, and are holding you hostage, with yourself as the source of ransom. When it's found you are without value, your decayed body will be allowed to die it's second and final death.

Re:hah.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126448)

The scary part is that makes more sense than most of the other posts here...

Re:hah.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126500)

A more realistic scenario, after the people pay so much money, the cryo lab will go bankrupt due to the corporate officers leaving the country with all the cash. Then by "accident", the liquid nitrogen tanks get removed, thawing out all the bodies in the tanks.

So, in in a few years time, any next of kin get urns in the mail, and an invoice for the cremation.

Re:hah.. (1)

thoughtspace (1444717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126584)

Well, that sort of happened with the pharaohs.

Re:hah.. (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126820)

What? No talking apes? I paid for talking apes living in mud huts with rifles they have no industry capable of providing ammunition for!

Damn YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

-FL

Ted Williams (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126382)

Great plan as long as your frozen head can withstand the blunt force trauma of being hit like a baseball.

The Future Will be a Beautiful Place (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126390)

It'll be pretty awesome when this actually works, and becomes popular, and inflation adjusts for the fact that thousands of people who have done nothing but use electricity for a century or two all have an amount of money equal to a sizable life insurance payout. :V

Money rusts (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126394)

"If you take a large amount of money and invest it carefully, at a good rate of return, compounded annually, it will eventually be worth nothing" Robert Heinlein. How much is a Drachma worth today? or a Lira, or a Spanish, or a Deutch Mark - yeah, they don't exist anymore and are worth diddly squat...

Re:Money rusts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126474)

You could say the same about guilders. However, I had a decent amount of guilders, and when the currency change came, they silently turned into euros (or euri like we half-jokingly call them). That doesn't mean your quote is necessarily wrong... but money tends to last a lot better than most other things. The world is owned by dynasties of rich people. I guess eventually the sun will explode, but until then...

Re:Money rusts (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126522)

You could get coin collectors to buy your money.

Re:Money rusts (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126704)

That's not actually true. First, money that is -invested- is generally used to buy something of value, typically something like land, commodities or fractions of companies (i.e. stock)

Second, wise investment means diversification. Certainly, some of the things you buy, will become worthless, but that's acceptable if you invest in a wide selection of different things.

A diversified portfolio only becomes worth zero if EVERY one of the items invested in, simultaneously drop to zero value.

I can't see that happening other than either if a global despotic government nationalizes all value, or if humanity stop being physical.

Re:Money rusts (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126802)

Yeah, but you'd have to be several degrees above "Carbonite" in order to properly manage your portfolio.

-FL

What the future will be like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126414)

I recommend you to read Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
It may change the way you think. While some idiots would simply laugh at his predictions, consider reading Ray's earlier predictions.

Hah. As if. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126418)

Before you decide to put yourself on ice, listen to the "This American Life" podcast.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1291 [thisamericanlife.org]

Right.

Let me decompose into wormfood quietly, please.

Re:Hah. As if. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126442)

Yeah, having one's head shoved in a vat with someone else's corpse in the garage of a flake who is trying to save on dry ice bills, while he worries about the health inspectors coming down on him for illegally storing human remains w/o a permit is not too encouraging a start to one's goal of a future full of compound interest and sci-fi hotties, really.

The Door into Summer (1)

fractalVisionz (989785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126446)

Looks like Heinlein was right again.

Time to buy some more Hired Girl stock!

Re:The Door into Summer (1)

LukeWebber (117950) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126990)

Bingo. But remember what happened to most of the other clients of that particular insurance company/cryo facility? Even the protagonist was lucky to get out with his life.

I'm also thinking of Niven's World out of Time. Odds were even longer.

Niven (2, Informative)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126486)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Larry Niven short story about Gil the ARM and the organleggers.

Re:Niven (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126846)

The Heinlein story Door into Summer [wikipedia.org] is even more appropriate. The summary was basically the premise of the book.

one thing (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126514)

Let's say you're cryogenically frozen, and that cryogenic freezing is lethal as seems to be the case.

Either:

1) You are already dead, and thus revival is already a moot point
2) The freeze kills you, revival is impossible, and the cryoplant is now on the hook for murder.

Given the current evidence against revival, anyone that places you in cryostasis while you are still alive is guilty of murder since they ought to know damn well you won't be coming back.

And if you're already dead, well, even if cryostasis didn't damage you any further you'd still be just as dead as before.

Cryo has got to be the most brilliant scam ever (5, Interesting)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126520)

Of course it is a bad scam preying on old people. But there are many such scams. The brilliant thing about cryogenics or whatever they call it is that the scammers can never be discovered. Let's face it it will not be possible to revive those poor dead people for a long time and probably forever. Even if micro biology advances it will not be possible because freezing tissue destroys all the cells and turns everything into mush. They need more than micro biology they need someone to reverse entropy, and good luck with that.

But anyways, let's imagine, for the sake of argument that it does become possible to revive those ppl. Even if that happens it will be far far in the future. And then of course when the people discover that everything has been stolen and there is no money in those funds, the perpetrators will be looong gone. Of course it is likely that by that time someone will have stopped paying the bills, the freezers would be switched off and some unlucky municipal government will have a hundred thousand rapidly thawing severed human heads to deal with.

Re:Cryo has got to be the most brilliant scam ever (4, Insightful)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126628)

It's not a scam, and even if it were, it wouldn't be a good one. For one thing, nobody is making huge amounts of money on it and for another thing, nobody is making unreasonable promises. Nobody says anywhere that you will be revived or even that it is highly probable that you will. It is well known and never denied that it is speculative. It is well known and not hidden that the technical, biological and chemical aspects of repairing a body that has been ravaged on the cellular level are enormous. It is simply sold as the only shot you have at even possibly maybe perhaps coming back. And that is exactly what it is.

Of course, a major economic shakeup or an extended power failure could mean you rot. There's no telling what the future holds. They have kept people in the deep freeze for 30 years and continue to maintain them.

Will these people eventually have their brains scanned into a computer? have genetically modified microbes repair their bodies? I don't know and neither do you. I would say the chances are slim, but they are not zero. On the other hand, burrial or cremation = zero.

It has also been pointed out that the deep freeze method, even with biological antifreeze does cause a good deal of damage on the cellular level. Of course, this is a big problem. But, it still is the best we have. No, it's far from perfect for preserving someone. Sit there are criticize it all you want, but can you offer something better? I assure you, for all it's flaws, it is orders of magnitude less destructive than the alternatives: Formaldehyde fixation, pasteurization, wax impregnation, dehydration - all these are many many times worse in terms of damage.

Here is the ultimate question: Would you rather have a possibility of returning of an unquestionable and undeniable zero, or would you rather have a slim chance? Would you take the chance even knowing that the future, even if you are alive, could be a culture shock or you will find that you don't have any money? Some people are willing to take that chance. It's not entirely illegitimate to consider it.


By the way - entropy is easy to reverse. There's no need for entropy to rise or for it to not be reversible, unless you're in a closed system. We're not in one and I reverse entropy every time I turn on my air conditioner.

Re:Cryo has got to be the most brilliant scam ever (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126732)

Using an air conditioner in a room, as a comparison to reversing entropy on someone who has been frozen, is a pretty huge stretch...

Who modded this insightful? (2, Insightful)

mxh83 (1607017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126694)

"The largest cryonics organization today, in terms of membership, was established as a nonprofit organization by Fred and Linda Chamberlain in California in 1972 as the Alcor Society for Solid State Hypothermia (ALCOR)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundation [wikipedia.org]

good news everyone! (1)

fan of lem (1092395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126540)

good news everyone!

Live Long Enough to Live Forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126556)

http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/

Hi (1)

thoughtspace (1444717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126602)

Walt Disney here, where's my money?

A better idea (1)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126652)

setting aside the issues of the technical difficulties and the uncertainty that you will ever be alive again, and assuming it will happen...

Put aside money in a trust fund as part of your will and allocate the purpose of the fund to be for the care and upkeep of your body and any needed maintenance to the freezers that is beyond the organization keeping you or to pay for the expense of any procedures necessary for your revival. You can set up a simple trust for this and the interest will compound. You can set up executors for your trust, ideally people you trust and who are young in age such that they will likely live decades more. They can choose others to take on the responsibility of executors of in case of their own deaths. Of course, that's just a matter of assurance because you can assure that it is bound in probate court. It would also help if you offered a cut of the money to the executors of the fund in the event of your revival, thus giving them incentive to keep you in stable.

There's no reason you could not do this and the only problem that could arise would be a drastic change in financial law or a fall of society etc. But there's really nothing you can do them anyway.

problem solved.

To all those who say it is impossible (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126712)

It was PROVEN that were you to emerge from a tunnel at a speed of greater then 30 miles an hour, the air blast would kill you. How hard do you drive?

Lots of things were impossible, before someone did them.

No, I don't see how someone's frozen head could be revived but think this. HOW many of you think it is possible to create an animal from a cell?

Yet the idea in Jurassic Park is not nearly as far fetched anymore is it? Used to be that dinosaurs came back in movie land because someone found some eggs that magically survived a million years. Suddenly a drop of blood will do.

And in fact, we might not even need that. Don't our genes contain the obsolete code from animals we were in the past? You could breed a toothed chicken.

No, I don't think that sticking your head in liquid nitrogen will work, but saying that the idea of cryogenics is impossible... that to me is ignoring that this has been said about way to many things. The impossible is only impossible until it becomes possible, after that everyone says "oh I could have thought of that". But you didn't because you thought it was impossible.

Welcome to the world of tomorrow! (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126774)

Shutup Terry

Plastic Minds, Electronic Souls, Metal bodies (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126814)

Forget cryogenic temperatures. After I die I want my brain to preserved by injecting it with a polymer that can preserve the positions of all of my neurons. Forget saving my DNA and cells, my DNA is already a mess. Just preserve my neural patterns and do it so my brain can survive at room temperatures for thousands of years. Think of an insect trapped in amber. You can never revive it, but you can take scans of it in a computer to make a "virtual" copy of it in computer memory. That way your "consciousness" can survive onwards, even if no atom of your original body is ever involved. Then later you may even have the opportunity to be transferred into a living flesh body, but you may not want to, why be a flesh and blood human with obvious weaknesses. Exist instead in a prosthetic body and a virtual mind. At home you can have a few extra spare bodies lying around and if you don't check in for a few years the hard copy you made of yourself will activate and copy itself into a fresh body and you live yet again!!!

There are techniques that can polymerize tissue, like in the body work 3-D exhibit, not sure if that can preserve discrete neuron positions and connections. But I could imagine if done properly you could preserve enough information from your brain to save your hopes, dreams fears and ambitions, your very soul! CAT scan technology is getting quite advanced and soon we may have scans with high enough resolution to record the positions of neurons and what other neurons they are connected to.

Disadvantages: You won't be "Exactly your former self" You won't have the same DNA or maybe even ANY DNA. You may never be able to go back "into the flesh" as your old self and may have to put up with being inside of a android body built by some company in China. They might take your virtual mind and put it to work in some menial capacity such as teaching annoying brats about history or piloting space garbage trucks. You may spend an eternity on your distant offspring's knick knack box to be sold at a garage sale... They may not be able to scan your neurons and simulate your brain. You might "screw the pooch" and your frozen friends were right and you are screwed because they cannot de-plasticize your brain... In order to scan your brain you may have to have your brain all sliced up and it may be destructive process so if the tech screws up, sorry, you dead for good now....

Advantages: You will be more "immortal" than your frozen popsicle counterparts. If they lose Nitrogen in their dewers they are rancid spoiler meat. You can take room temperatures in a box in the attic and laugh at your thawed friends. Zombies won't want to eat you plasticized brain, "it taste bad..." No apocalypse survivors would want to eat you either and no organ market would want to use you to make a quick buck as the process on plasticizing is irreversible unless you have micro bots or something exotic and if you have them you won't need organs from dead plastic people. Advanced CAT scans and brain simulation seems to be a little closer technologically speaking than flesh re-animating defrosting nanobots. Having multiple hard backups of yourself is a lot easier. You can "burn" multiple backups of yourself on "Gamma Ray Holographic Disc". If you are not a data pattern you could be sent to Mars with ease and at light speed. They just need a computer at their end and a spare robot body. You can "deadhead" for many years if things get boring, (think of it like having a Fast Forward button on life, but you cannot rewind unless you want to live it virtually, heh).

Technology needed:

1. A chemical cocktail that can plasticize human cells at a cellular level and isn't destructive to neural connections and can remain stable after "setting up" in room temperatures. (we may already have this)
2. Scanning equipment than has cellular resolution or better than can record neural connections. (we are getting really close today to this)
3. A computer than can simulate a human mind based off neural connection information (30 to 50 years)
4. A good understanding of the Human Brain and how neurons contribute to consciousness (30 to 50 years)
5. Prosthetic Body or Android Body with enough computation power to run said simulation (30 to 50 years if moore's law keep up)

So screw being frozen, I want to live on as a computer program based off my brain map. Maybe I will apply for that job hauling space garbage tomorrow. The Future waits....

Thank you (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126850)

But I discovered a cheaper way to achieve similar if not better results, there is a thing called sex.
My heir currently fills his diapers.

welcome.. (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126908)

..to the world of tomorrow!

Yeah, you are a head in a jar, your money got ripped off 30 minutes after you were frozen and you owe the government $100 squillion in cryo-tax and you will be kept in this cupboard till you pay up.

Insurance co. says "YES PLEASE!" (4, Interesting)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30126928)

So say I run an insurance company. Someone comes to me and says they'll give me a pile of money on the condition I give them a huge payout after they return from the dead. I know that the odds that they'll be back someday are essentially nil. So basically, they want to give me free money. YES PLEASE!

As a general rule, you shouldn't be surprised that insurance companies will insure you against X, if X is impossible.

I was frozen today! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30126976)

legally dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30127042)

You get thawed out after x number of years in a hospital, and find you can't get out. And you feeling sick all the time. Some times you are in horrible pain. Slowly you realize you are being used as a human guinea pig for all sorts of nasty and painful experiments.

"You can't do this to me!"

"Yes we can. Technically, your dead. Well, legally dead, and that is all that matters."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...