Interesting, although I’ve always wondered what the value would be of preserving an older individual (I’m assuming s/he’s on the old side). Maybe I’m simply not well-versed in medical advancements, but it seems the problem of reviving a cryonic (if that is the term) is a completely different problem from reversing the aging process, or in short, preventing death entirely. Of course, there could be large overlap with the advancements, just my two cents.
The usual assumption is that neuropreservation is just to store your information, and you won’t be revived until a brand new body can be built for you. It’s not so much that aging will be solved by then, as that it isn’t even in the same ballpark.
Interesting, although I’ve always wondered what the value would be of preserving an older individual (I’m assuming s/he’s on the old side). Maybe I’m simply not well-versed in medical advancements, but it seems the problem of reviving a cryonic (if that is the term) is a completely different problem from reversing the aging process, or in short, preventing death entirely. Of course, there could be large overlap with the advancements, just my two cents.
The patient shouldn’t be revived until both problems can be solved cheaply.
The usual assumption is that neuropreservation is just to store your information, and you won’t be revived until a brand new body can be built for you. It’s not so much that aging will be solved by then, as that it isn’t even in the same ballpark.