I think even these numbers are a little high, except for the fact that you didn’t limit it by jurisdiction. Cryonics isn’t hot right now, but longevity certainly is. I don’t think there is enough attention on cryonics to justify legislation, but even if there were, the first steps of the legal battle would be court decisions rather than legislation.
Cryonics has recently attracted a small but dedicated opposition who’ve adopted the framing that cryonics is a scam which consumers need protection from. (I won’t link to them, but you can find them in any google search for the word “cryonics”.) The basic issue seems to be that it matches their perception of a Scientology-like cult. They’ve been growing more active, so I wouldn’t put it past them to try to push something through this year.
There was a bill specifically targeting cryonics proposed in 2004 in Arizona. Arguably the Ted Williams event was its cause, so as long as cryonics organizations are more careful to establish clear evidence of consent in celebrity cases, the likelihood of it being repeated in a given year should be relatively low.
Oddly enough the publicity from the Ted Williams case triggered an investigation in Michigan in which they determined that CI was an unlicensed cemetery. While not exactly a new law, it is certainly new legal restriction as the existing law for cemeteries prohibits preparing the body on site.
That’s not to say there aren’t useful features of cemetery law—e.g. there’s a law for making sure that 15% of a cemetery’s monies are kept in perpetual care fund. A law like this would make sense in the context of cryonics facilities if they were considered as a separate sort of entity from cemeteries that is permitted to do things necessary for patient care which have no relevance to a cemetery situation, such as preparing the patient on site.
I didn’t actually realize cryonics was such a hot topic on this site until after I had posted, so I became a little worried that I’d get beaten with the newbie stick for it.
I consider myself a transhumanist (in the sense that I find genetic alteration, computer augmentation, life extension, etc to be desirable goals, not in the sense that I drank the Kurzweil Kool-Aid and think that all this is inevitable or even probable in my lifetime), but I had never really considered cryonics as a major transhumanist approach.
I’m certainly not opposed to cryonics on any kind of ethical grounds (my personal pragmatic concerns are a matter for another thread entirely), but since this is a question of the policy rather than the science side of cryonics, I have to go with my general observation that legislatures almost inevitably show up a day late and a dollar short. I think that the first wave of legislation on the topic will come at least one legislative session after the irrational masses start to get worked up into a religious frenzy over cryonics. So this is, to me, an issue better suited for decade rather than year predictions. I am however, compelled to agree with you that the likelihood of pro-cryonics legislation appears to be significantly less than the likelihood of anti-cryonics legislation. Hell, even if I weren’t a transhumanist, the civil libertarian in me would be appalled by Michigan’s facepalmingly bureaucratic handling of the situation. “Cryonics Institute is clearly operating as both a funeral establishment and cemetery without any state oversight.” Do we really need a government permission slip to bury/freeze our dead?
Also, why am I completely unsurprised by the fact that Arizona was the state to try and ban cryonics?
I’d be more than happy to debate any and all pragmatic concerns you can think of in another thread. Feel free to start one in Discussion. I’m not signed up yet, focusing largely on the advocacy side of things. As a younger adult it seems like advocacy has a higher potential payoff both in research getting done before my turn comes and having freedom and necessary infrastructure to get preserved under ideal circumstances. Currently it’s very difficult to arrange an ideal preservation.
I’m not 100% libertarian, and try to see both sides. There is something to the argument that there should be a law requiring cryonics organizations to have good financial arrangements covering long term care. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing the thawing of patients, along similar (though not identical) lines to the interest it has in preventing graveyards from having to sell their land to developers. But that interest is not even remotely close to being an adequate excuse to prevent patients from achieving an ideal preservation. We’re being handed a false dichotomy when forced to regulate cryonics as if it were a cemetery operation (or as a standardly defined medical one, if it comes to that).
I think even these numbers are a little high, except for the fact that you didn’t limit it by jurisdiction. Cryonics isn’t hot right now, but longevity certainly is. I don’t think there is enough attention on cryonics to justify legislation, but even if there were, the first steps of the legal battle would be court decisions rather than legislation.
Cryonics has recently attracted a small but dedicated opposition who’ve adopted the framing that cryonics is a scam which consumers need protection from. (I won’t link to them, but you can find them in any google search for the word “cryonics”.) The basic issue seems to be that it matches their perception of a Scientology-like cult. They’ve been growing more active, so I wouldn’t put it past them to try to push something through this year.
There was a bill specifically targeting cryonics proposed in 2004 in Arizona. Arguably the Ted Williams event was its cause, so as long as cryonics organizations are more careful to establish clear evidence of consent in celebrity cases, the likelihood of it being repeated in a given year should be relatively low.
Oddly enough the publicity from the Ted Williams case triggered an investigation in Michigan in which they determined that CI was an unlicensed cemetery. While not exactly a new law, it is certainly new legal restriction as the existing law for cemeteries prohibits preparing the body on site.
That’s not to say there aren’t useful features of cemetery law—e.g. there’s a law for making sure that 15% of a cemetery’s monies are kept in perpetual care fund. A law like this would make sense in the context of cryonics facilities if they were considered as a separate sort of entity from cemeteries that is permitted to do things necessary for patient care which have no relevance to a cemetery situation, such as preparing the patient on site.
I didn’t actually realize cryonics was such a hot topic on this site until after I had posted, so I became a little worried that I’d get beaten with the newbie stick for it.
I consider myself a transhumanist (in the sense that I find genetic alteration, computer augmentation, life extension, etc to be desirable goals, not in the sense that I drank the Kurzweil Kool-Aid and think that all this is inevitable or even probable in my lifetime), but I had never really considered cryonics as a major transhumanist approach. I’m certainly not opposed to cryonics on any kind of ethical grounds (my personal pragmatic concerns are a matter for another thread entirely), but since this is a question of the policy rather than the science side of cryonics, I have to go with my general observation that legislatures almost inevitably show up a day late and a dollar short. I think that the first wave of legislation on the topic will come at least one legislative session after the irrational masses start to get worked up into a religious frenzy over cryonics. So this is, to me, an issue better suited for decade rather than year predictions. I am however, compelled to agree with you that the likelihood of pro-cryonics legislation appears to be significantly less than the likelihood of anti-cryonics legislation. Hell, even if I weren’t a transhumanist, the civil libertarian in me would be appalled by Michigan’s facepalmingly bureaucratic handling of the situation. “Cryonics Institute is clearly operating as both a funeral establishment and cemetery without any state oversight.” Do we really need a government permission slip to bury/freeze our dead?
Also, why am I completely unsurprised by the fact that Arizona was the state to try and ban cryonics?
I’d be more than happy to debate any and all pragmatic concerns you can think of in another thread. Feel free to start one in Discussion. I’m not signed up yet, focusing largely on the advocacy side of things. As a younger adult it seems like advocacy has a higher potential payoff both in research getting done before my turn comes and having freedom and necessary infrastructure to get preserved under ideal circumstances. Currently it’s very difficult to arrange an ideal preservation.
I’m not 100% libertarian, and try to see both sides. There is something to the argument that there should be a law requiring cryonics organizations to have good financial arrangements covering long term care. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing the thawing of patients, along similar (though not identical) lines to the interest it has in preventing graveyards from having to sell their land to developers. But that interest is not even remotely close to being an adequate excuse to prevent patients from achieving an ideal preservation. We’re being handed a false dichotomy when forced to regulate cryonics as if it were a cemetery operation (or as a standardly defined medical one, if it comes to that).