I used to be a cryogenic engineer. My impression is that the cost of a large-scale cryonics grave would be high, on the order of $50-100M because of the reliability required of the vacuum and the extreme insulation requirements. It would probably require ~20 concentric layers of vapour shielded vacuum insulation (i.e. 20 concentric shells of metal with an ultra-high vacuum between each layer). The outermost layer might be 35-40 meters in diameter. The required strength of the neck to support 3000 tons is quite extreme.
Perhaps a better solution that I have thought of is an active cooling system that uses a no-moving parts refrigerator and a radioisotope power source. That way the system doesn’t need to be huge. In fact, it benefits from being small. The roadblock there is getting regulatory permission to bury a radioisotope power source, as they are highly radioactive and if they fell into the hands of terrorists could be used to build a dirty bomb. (The solution would be to bury in a very remote location like the Antarctic, and minimize knowledge that there even is radioactive material in it)
Roko… you must have been dealing with small scale cryonics. I am an engineer in the LNG industry, and we routinely design cryogenic storage tanks up to 200,000 m3 in volume. Vacuum is never used on this scale, in fact we use pearlite powder insulation and wood blocks to support the inner liner, and glass or polyurethane foam to insulate the shell. The PU foam is cheap and can be more or less as thick as you wish. Heat loss for LNG tanks is around 5 watts/sqm, for large tanks this represents a boil-off of around 1/50th of 1% per day. I’m sure this can be lowered. $100 million will buy a 140,000 m3 tank. If you want one, let me know :)
(AFAIK, powder is also used in vacuum flasks instead of multiple layers).
My suspicion is that the best insulation performance for this application would be aerogel in a rough vacuum. This article states:
Vacuum insulations are commonplace in various products (such as Thermos bottles). These systems generally require a high vacuum to be maintained indefinitely to achieve the desired performance. In the case of aerogels, however, it is only necessary to reduce the pressure enough to lengthen the mean free path of the gas relative to the mean pore diameter. This occurs for most aerogels at a pressure of about 50 Torr. This is a very modest vacuum that can be easily obtained and maintained (by sealing the aerogel in a light plastic bag).
I suspect that with a vacuum of 1 Torr you could get down to 0.001W/m-K or even below.
So perlite powder apparently has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K
Thanks for your comment. I worked with superconducting magnets and ultra-low temp systems, so yes, you are clearly more in the know about these kinds of sizes and temperatures.
Heat loss for LNG tanks is around 5 watts/sqm, for large tanks this represents a boil-off of around 1/50th of 1% per day
Could it be lowered by a further factor of 8 or so?
What is the thermal conductivity of pearlite powder? Is there something that isn’t a vacuum that is just one order of magnitude more insulating?
What about filling with a mix of aerogel and pearlite?
Seriously, if we can get a boiloff time of > 80 years for a cost of < 20 million we might have a serious chance of this being implemented.
The boil-off can be lowered by increasing the insulation thickness, using better materials etc… the current designs are far from optimised for heat loss, since the gas companies do want to eventually sell the LNG in gaseous state. I think that a factor of 8 is doable with current techniques at abt 2x the overall price (this is a guesstimate not a quotation, OK? ;)
I think that you can do much, much better than this by using a rough vacuum filled with powder or aerogel granules. I actually think that you can make a tank of diameter only 10 meters that would last for centuries. Such a small tank would probably only cost $200,000 or so to build, yes? The main issue would be maintaining the vacuum, but it would only need to be a rough vacuum (1/100 atmospheres).
I’m actually seriously considering pitching this idea to Ben Best when he comes to the UK in 15 days.
At 125 neuro patients per m3, we’re talking room for 25 million patients in a single 200,000 m3 tank. Total boiloff would be 40 m3 per day, which would take 5000 days if the tank is full of cryogen, or 1250 days (~4y) if the patients take up 75% of the volume.
If we wanted to get it to the century range, I wonder how much thicker the insulation needs to be… a factor of 25? Number of watts would need to go down to 200 milliwatt/sqm.
I used to be a cryogenic engineer. My impression is that the cost of a large-scale cryonics grave would be high, on the order of $50-100M because of the reliability required of the vacuum and the extreme insulation requirements.
By my estimate, such a container could hold up to 125000 heads, at $800 each. Very affordable. On the other hand, if you needed a coffin-size space for full body, the price would be more like $25000.
Sure, the problem is getting 125000 people to sign up for cryo. If you could just do that, you wouldn’t need to worry about thawed cryo bodies, because cryo would be practically mainstream at that stage.
But I notice cryonics is popular among the geek-set, which is not as small as one might think. Most cryonicists have computer science backgrounds. What would happen if IT companies and engineering firms started offering cryonics as part of their standard benefits package?
Cryonics doesn’t necessarily need more male propeller heads. I think it would benefit from more women, married couples and entire families, which would give it the vitality and durability of mainstream social structures like churches. Unfortunately I don’t know how to overcome the “hostile wife phenomenon,” as well as the fact that a commitment to cryonics resists generational transmission.
As an example of the latter, Marce Johnson entered the paleo-cryonics scene in the 1960′s, and she had 40 years to show her children through precept and example that she wanted cryonic suspension for herself. To summarize a long story, despite efforts to raise money for her cryotransport with CI after she developed Alzheimer’s and lost her suspension arrangements with another organization, she died and the daughter with POA over her had her cremated, then informed Marce’s cryonicist friends after the fact, apparently out of spite.
Early adopters are (relatively) crazy and have to put up with ridicule from their friends because it’s not cool yet. That’s just how it goes. The trouble is that cryonics has stayed in the early adopter phase for 40 years.
Suddenly I have the mental image of a t-shirt reading “I was into cryonics before it was cool.”
With a few exceptions, why does cryonics continue to repel female early adopters? I draw the contrast with Mormonism, which drew a lot of female early adopters despite sanctions against their participation in it. One, they had to defy taboos about getting involved in weird, heretical new religions; and two, they especially had to defy taboos against polygyny and adultery. Yet their participation turned Mormonism into a demographically successful church. If Mormonism had attracted mostly men, its demographic breakthrough wouldn’t have happened.
I imagine Mormonism gave women the spiritual connection which most church groups do. I doubt it is coincidental that women outnumber men in churches. The protection of a powerful alpha male, as God is portrayed, might be something they can connect with more easily than men, on average.
But religion is not the only thing that disproportionately attracts women… For example, the Twilight fandom is mostly female.
While we’re speculating, I think it’s that “kin work” (keeping up with family and friends, taking care of the elderly, child-rearing) primarily falls to women. Churches provide a framework to do that. If you’ve noticed, women are highly active in the parts of a church that aren’t explicitly about God—fundraising committees, education committees, various organizing functions. It’s community-building glue.
Cryonics, unlike Mormonism, doesn’t have that aspect. As of now, it’s a transaction made by an individual. I’m not sure how one would make cryonics by itself “church-like.”
You could try to make a rationalist social institution—like a Masonic lodge—that combined charitable work, socializing, activities for children, educational lectures, and activities/volunteering opportunities for the elderly. Cryonics could be built into that. The point is, it has to be a family and community institution.
Some of my favorite authors are Mormon. Orson Scott Card, Brandon Sanderson, and Howard Tayler. Somehow they seem to go to greater extremes in their fiction than non-Mormons on average. And they have no qualms about literally turning a character into God (given that Mormon theology includes this eventually happening to the faithful anyway). There’s a kind of balance of creepiness/weirdness and old-fashioned family values, which is in itself perhaps more disturbing in a way.
I think it has to do with how success of a meme seems to have a lot to do with its power to resolve cognitive dissonance—but what this implies is that the cognitive dissonance must exist to begin with. When they encounter the creep factor of cryonics, most people resolve cognitive dissonance by ignoring it, downplaying its chances of success, or imagining fantastic reasons it would not work. Cryonicists themselves might resolve the dissonance factors by reassuring themselves that it’s the only sane thing to do in face of inevitable deanimation, reading up on the facts, and hoping for improvements in the process before they die. But that sort of thing takes a lot of activity in the logical areas of the brain.
Mormons seem to resolve the cognitive dissonance factors of their religion (and the weirder aspects of life in general) by turning to a focus on human relationships—family, romance, etc. Perhaps the cognitive functions involved in this are easier to stimulate in a group that is highly inclusive of women and children.
Zenna Henderson is another splendid Mormon author. One of my Mormon friends aspires to write children’s books, although she’s not yet been published, and her writing is reasonably good as well. Said friend accounts for this strong representation of Mormons in the fiction world by saying that the religion encourages imagination and creativity. (It’s perfectly acceptable to plan for being one of the future deities who gets to run a universe later, so one may as well think about how one plans to do it.)
It’s perfectly acceptable to plan for being one of the future deities who gets to run a universe later, so one may as well think about how one plans to do it.
Crikey, I didn’t know that… the other cool thing is, you learn about genealogy and get to save all of your unbaptized relatives from hell! That religion has some pretty kickass memes.
They are so hardcore about genealogy. I have one friend whose tree goes back all the way to some crackpot king who demanded that genealogers trace his lineage back to Adam, so my friend can trace hers back that far too.
They are so hardcore about genealogy. I have one friend whose tree goes back all the way to some crackpot king who demanded that genealogers trace his lineage back to Adam, so my friend can trace hers back that far too.
That’s impressive. I can only trace my lineage back to people who actually existed.
It’s true that social institutions do better if they have women and families on board.
Since you mentioned churches: keep in mind that anybody who believes in bodily resurrection will have a problem with their loved ones being buried without heads.
Cryonics would have to recruit from among the non-religious, which is a big handicap to begin with.
Since you mentioned churches: keep in mind that anybody who believes in bodily resurrection will have a problem with their loved ones being buried without heads.
Anyone who believes in a resurrection that is so fixed in nature that their deity will have trouble resurrecting the person if the body is in two pieces is probably so far removed from rationality that it probably isn’t worth trying to convince them that cryonics is reasonable. (On a marginally related topic I’ve been thinking on and off of the halachic(Orthodox Jewish law) ramifications of cryonics and I think an argument can be potentially made for cryonic preservation as long as one does full body preservation. It might be interesting to talk to some Modern Orthodox Rabbis and see what they say. Judaism has generally been more willing to adopt new medical technology than Christianity so if one is trying to aim at religious individuals that might be one possible avenue of attack. ETA: Thinking slightly more about this, I think a strong argument can be made that if halachah allows for cryonics then halachah would actually mandate it (based on the rules about the measures one goes to save lives))
I suspect that among the less strongly religious, such as moderate Christians and Jews in the US, religion is not itself a major reason against cryonics. I suspect that the weirdness aura and cached thoughts about death are much larger elements.
Yes, Christians I’ve talked to seem not to have a problem with God gathering scattered ashes on the resurrection day. It would detract from his omnipotence if he were unable to do so. And plenty of martyrs were burned at the stake or beheaded. In fact, the book of Revelation specifically reserves a place in heaven for those who are beheaded for not taking the mark of the beast. I don’t know if other religions feel differently, but Biblically based Christianity does not have anything that says separating the body from the head is cause for grief on the part of the individual.
I don’t tell any of the programmers or computer scientists I work with about cryonics for social reasons. While many cryonicists have computer science backgrounds, I do not feel the reverse is true.
Social reasons? You’re scared they’ll think you’re weird? I’d think most programmers would be open to a discussion about the brain as a program, at least. Is it really that weird?
Things like this are 90% self-confidence and 10% innate weirdness. Talk about it like it’s obvious, normal, and you’re part of a community of smart people out there, and they’ll pick up on the cues.
I know saying that won’t help a lot of people, but it’s what I do. When I introduce cryonics to someone, I don’t sound nervous and timid and censure-expecting, I take off my necklace and say “This is my contract of immortality with the cult of the severed head.”
I actually have the self confidence that it’s the correct decision, just not that I’ll be socially accepted. Analogously, I came out about being bi many years back and was completely wrong—it appears to be fine among people I know. It’s completely reasonable that I may be wrong again. Have you found that cryonics is socially acceptable, or do you just think it’s important to change its reputation?
I have found that anything is socially acceptable so long as you effectively signal that your non-conformity is a choice, not a result of an inability to conform or a way of coping with fear of rejection. Weird is NEVER OK with successful people. Deliberately different is ALWAYS OK so long as you are willing to not draw attention to it all the time.
Example. Vibrams with a suit are generally the best attire for most formal situations in my experience. You show that you are able and willing to conform, not psychologically unable to do so, but you also show that you aren’t afraid of the penalties for not conforming and that you will stand up for some principles some of the time. That’s attractive. The devil classically does it, in myths where he can/will take any form and disguise himself perfectly except for retaining cloven hooves, a tail and/or some similar indication of his identity.
So the trick to doing what you suggest is to conform on most axes, but be obviously non-conformist about the things you care about in a confident, but not confrontational way?
Of course not in a courtroom. That’s not “most formal situations” but rather almost literally a contest to publicly display willingness to conform to elite norms and generally to submit.
Can you elaborate on this? It seems obviously wrong to me.
I also don’t understand how wearing Vibrams with a suit to a formal occasion signals anything but lack of fashion sense and being unaware of social norms. I mean, sure, if you’re in charge, you can wear whatever you want, but if you’re not in charge, someone seeing you wear footwear that doesn’t go with the clothes will just think you don’t know how to dress appropriately.
It’s a matter of how far you push it. It wouldn’t belong at a funeral or an opera, but it works well in any situation where a suit would be desirable but not close to mandatory. You want to signal awareness but lack of fear, not insensitivity. Vibrams aren’t something that someone could wear by mistake, or out of carelessness. Pushing things somewhat farther, you could be formally dressed with a very conspicuous fake tattoo.
I’m wondering how much the vibrams + business suit works because you’re dealing with geeks, so that they’re responsive to a weird/cool/potentially practical combination—something which I don’t think would go over well with mainstream bankers.
It works with a variety of types, not just geeks, as do the fake tattoos. It might not work with heirarchy climbing types, especially with the fearful types who climb a little way up a heirarchy and then sit there unable to go further, but I think its frequently a mistake to have anything to do with such people anyway except when absolutely necessary. You can’t influence their behavior with ideas, friendship or passion, only with fear of being ostracized or (to a much lesser extent) penalized.
I talk about the idea with a lot of people, and no one seems to think poorly of me for wanting to do it, though many people say they wouldn’t want to. I just don’t see it as that weird or not socially acceptable.
That’s an interesting question. Intense, good hackers might be more open to it than it’s-a-job-programmers, if only because people less mainstream in one area often are in others. I really have no idea. I’ll do an informal survey of people I know online (hackers) and people at my work (programmers). I’ve seen P.J. Eby posting to the python development list, so I’d label him a hacker. What is your opinion on cryonics, pjeby?
I’m a hacker, good at it, and signed up for cryonics. I also know of at least one other hacker who is signed up, and another who is in the process of being signed up.
There’s Hal) Finney, for one. Not sure if he counts as “famous”, though he’s at least famous enough to merit a Wikipedia article, and he surely qualifies as a “good hacker”.
I used to be a cryogenic engineer. My impression is that the cost of a large-scale cryonics grave would be high, on the order of $50-100M because of the reliability required of the vacuum and the extreme insulation requirements. It would probably require ~20 concentric layers of vapour shielded vacuum insulation (i.e. 20 concentric shells of metal with an ultra-high vacuum between each layer). The outermost layer might be 35-40 meters in diameter. The required strength of the neck to support 3000 tons is quite extreme.
Perhaps a better solution that I have thought of is an active cooling system that uses a no-moving parts refrigerator and a radioisotope power source. That way the system doesn’t need to be huge. In fact, it benefits from being small. The roadblock there is getting regulatory permission to bury a radioisotope power source, as they are highly radioactive and if they fell into the hands of terrorists could be used to build a dirty bomb. (The solution would be to bury in a very remote location like the Antarctic, and minimize knowledge that there even is radioactive material in it)
Roko… you must have been dealing with small scale cryonics. I am an engineer in the LNG industry, and we routinely design cryogenic storage tanks up to 200,000 m3 in volume. Vacuum is never used on this scale, in fact we use pearlite powder insulation and wood blocks to support the inner liner, and glass or polyurethane foam to insulate the shell. The PU foam is cheap and can be more or less as thick as you wish. Heat loss for LNG tanks is around 5 watts/sqm, for large tanks this represents a boil-off of around 1/50th of 1% per day. I’m sure this can be lowered. $100 million will buy a 140,000 m3 tank. If you want one, let me know :)
(AFAIK, powder is also used in vacuum flasks instead of multiple layers).
My suspicion is that the best insulation performance for this application would be aerogel in a rough vacuum. This article states:
I suspect that with a vacuum of 1 Torr you could get down to 0.001W/m-K or even below.
So perlite powder apparently has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K
Thanks for your comment. I worked with superconducting magnets and ultra-low temp systems, so yes, you are clearly more in the know about these kinds of sizes and temperatures.
Could it be lowered by a further factor of 8 or so?
What is the thermal conductivity of pearlite powder? Is there something that isn’t a vacuum that is just one order of magnitude more insulating?
What about filling with a mix of aerogel and pearlite?
Seriously, if we can get a boiloff time of > 80 years for a cost of < 20 million we might have a serious chance of this being implemented.
The boil-off can be lowered by increasing the insulation thickness, using better materials etc… the current designs are far from optimised for heat loss, since the gas companies do want to eventually sell the LNG in gaseous state. I think that a factor of 8 is doable with current techniques at abt 2x the overall price (this is a guesstimate not a quotation, OK? ;)
See A proposal for a cryogenic grave for cryonics
I think that you can do much, much better than this by using a rough vacuum filled with powder or aerogel granules. I actually think that you can make a tank of diameter only 10 meters that would last for centuries. Such a small tank would probably only cost $200,000 or so to build, yes? The main issue would be maintaining the vacuum, but it would only need to be a rough vacuum (1/100 atmospheres).
I’m actually seriously considering pitching this idea to Ben Best when he comes to the UK in 15 days.
So perlite powder apparently has a thermal conductivity of 0.02W/m-K
At 125 neuro patients per m3, we’re talking room for 25 million patients in a single 200,000 m3 tank. Total boiloff would be 40 m3 per day, which would take 5000 days if the tank is full of cryogen, or 1250 days (~4y) if the patients take up 75% of the volume.
If we wanted to get it to the century range, I wonder how much thicker the insulation needs to be… a factor of 25? Number of watts would need to go down to 200 milliwatt/sqm.
By my estimate, such a container could hold up to 125000 heads, at $800 each. Very affordable. On the other hand, if you needed a coffin-size space for full body, the price would be more like $25000.
Sure, the problem is getting 125000 people to sign up for cryo. If you could just do that, you wouldn’t need to worry about thawed cryo bodies, because cryo would be practically mainstream at that stage.
And that is the dilemma.
But I notice cryonics is popular among the geek-set, which is not as small as one might think. Most cryonicists have computer science backgrounds. What would happen if IT companies and engineering firms started offering cryonics as part of their standard benefits package?
Cryonics doesn’t necessarily need more male propeller heads. I think it would benefit from more women, married couples and entire families, which would give it the vitality and durability of mainstream social structures like churches. Unfortunately I don’t know how to overcome the “hostile wife phenomenon,” as well as the fact that a commitment to cryonics resists generational transmission.
As an example of the latter, Marce Johnson entered the paleo-cryonics scene in the 1960′s, and she had 40 years to show her children through precept and example that she wanted cryonic suspension for herself. To summarize a long story, despite efforts to raise money for her cryotransport with CI after she developed Alzheimer’s and lost her suspension arrangements with another organization, she died and the daughter with POA over her had her cremated, then informed Marce’s cryonicist friends after the fact, apparently out of spite.
Early adopters are (relatively) crazy and have to put up with ridicule from their friends because it’s not cool yet. That’s just how it goes. The trouble is that cryonics has stayed in the early adopter phase for 40 years.
Suddenly I have the mental image of a t-shirt reading “I was into cryonics before it was cool.”
I want one.
I want a shirt that says “I was into cryonics before I was cooled.”
With a few exceptions, why does cryonics continue to repel female early adopters? I draw the contrast with Mormonism, which drew a lot of female early adopters despite sanctions against their participation in it. One, they had to defy taboos about getting involved in weird, heretical new religions; and two, they especially had to defy taboos against polygyny and adultery. Yet their participation turned Mormonism into a demographically successful church. If Mormonism had attracted mostly men, its demographic breakthrough wouldn’t have happened.
A few exceptions? I don’t get the impression that the statistics are that severely skewed.
According to Kerry Howley’s NYT article just linked by ciphergoth:
(Problematic, but not quite “few exceptions” territory.)
I imagine Mormonism gave women the spiritual connection which most church groups do. I doubt it is coincidental that women outnumber men in churches. The protection of a powerful alpha male, as God is portrayed, might be something they can connect with more easily than men, on average.
But religion is not the only thing that disproportionately attracts women… For example, the Twilight fandom is mostly female.
While we’re speculating, I think it’s that “kin work” (keeping up with family and friends, taking care of the elderly, child-rearing) primarily falls to women. Churches provide a framework to do that. If you’ve noticed, women are highly active in the parts of a church that aren’t explicitly about God—fundraising committees, education committees, various organizing functions. It’s community-building glue.
Cryonics, unlike Mormonism, doesn’t have that aspect. As of now, it’s a transaction made by an individual. I’m not sure how one would make cryonics by itself “church-like.”
You could try to make a rationalist social institution—like a Masonic lodge—that combined charitable work, socializing, activities for children, educational lectures, and activities/volunteering opportunities for the elderly. Cryonics could be built into that. The point is, it has to be a family and community institution.
Perhaps coincidentally, Twilight was written by a Mormon.
Some of my favorite authors are Mormon. Orson Scott Card, Brandon Sanderson, and Howard Tayler. Somehow they seem to go to greater extremes in their fiction than non-Mormons on average. And they have no qualms about literally turning a character into God (given that Mormon theology includes this eventually happening to the faithful anyway). There’s a kind of balance of creepiness/weirdness and old-fashioned family values, which is in itself perhaps more disturbing in a way.
I think it has to do with how success of a meme seems to have a lot to do with its power to resolve cognitive dissonance—but what this implies is that the cognitive dissonance must exist to begin with. When they encounter the creep factor of cryonics, most people resolve cognitive dissonance by ignoring it, downplaying its chances of success, or imagining fantastic reasons it would not work. Cryonicists themselves might resolve the dissonance factors by reassuring themselves that it’s the only sane thing to do in face of inevitable deanimation, reading up on the facts, and hoping for improvements in the process before they die. But that sort of thing takes a lot of activity in the logical areas of the brain.
Mormons seem to resolve the cognitive dissonance factors of their religion (and the weirder aspects of life in general) by turning to a focus on human relationships—family, romance, etc. Perhaps the cognitive functions involved in this are easier to stimulate in a group that is highly inclusive of women and children.
Zenna Henderson is another splendid Mormon author. One of my Mormon friends aspires to write children’s books, although she’s not yet been published, and her writing is reasonably good as well. Said friend accounts for this strong representation of Mormons in the fiction world by saying that the religion encourages imagination and creativity. (It’s perfectly acceptable to plan for being one of the future deities who gets to run a universe later, so one may as well think about how one plans to do it.)
Crikey, I didn’t know that… the other cool thing is, you learn about genealogy and get to save all of your unbaptized relatives from hell! That religion has some pretty kickass memes.
They are so hardcore about genealogy. I have one friend whose tree goes back all the way to some crackpot king who demanded that genealogers trace his lineage back to Adam, so my friend can trace hers back that far too.
That’s impressive. I can only trace my lineage back to people who actually existed.
… per household?
It’s true that social institutions do better if they have women and families on board.
Since you mentioned churches: keep in mind that anybody who believes in bodily resurrection will have a problem with their loved ones being buried without heads.
Cryonics would have to recruit from among the non-religious, which is a big handicap to begin with.
Anyone who believes in a resurrection that is so fixed in nature that their deity will have trouble resurrecting the person if the body is in two pieces is probably so far removed from rationality that it probably isn’t worth trying to convince them that cryonics is reasonable. (On a marginally related topic I’ve been thinking on and off of the halachic(Orthodox Jewish law) ramifications of cryonics and I think an argument can be potentially made for cryonic preservation as long as one does full body preservation. It might be interesting to talk to some Modern Orthodox Rabbis and see what they say. Judaism has generally been more willing to adopt new medical technology than Christianity so if one is trying to aim at religious individuals that might be one possible avenue of attack. ETA: Thinking slightly more about this, I think a strong argument can be made that if halachah allows for cryonics then halachah would actually mandate it (based on the rules about the measures one goes to save lives))
I suspect that among the less strongly religious, such as moderate Christians and Jews in the US, religion is not itself a major reason against cryonics. I suspect that the weirdness aura and cached thoughts about death are much larger elements.
Yes, Christians I’ve talked to seem not to have a problem with God gathering scattered ashes on the resurrection day. It would detract from his omnipotence if he were unable to do so. And plenty of martyrs were burned at the stake or beheaded. In fact, the book of Revelation specifically reserves a place in heaven for those who are beheaded for not taking the mark of the beast. I don’t know if other religions feel differently, but Biblically based Christianity does not have anything that says separating the body from the head is cause for grief on the part of the individual.
I don’t tell any of the programmers or computer scientists I work with about cryonics for social reasons. While many cryonicists have computer science backgrounds, I do not feel the reverse is true.
Social reasons? You’re scared they’ll think you’re weird? I’d think most programmers would be open to a discussion about the brain as a program, at least. Is it really that weird?
Things like this are 90% self-confidence and 10% innate weirdness. Talk about it like it’s obvious, normal, and you’re part of a community of smart people out there, and they’ll pick up on the cues.
I know saying that won’t help a lot of people, but it’s what I do. When I introduce cryonics to someone, I don’t sound nervous and timid and censure-expecting, I take off my necklace and say “This is my contract of immortality with the cult of the severed head.”
Aren’t you signed up with CI, which doesn’t do neuro? Whence the severed head?
I actually have the self confidence that it’s the correct decision, just not that I’ll be socially accepted. Analogously, I came out about being bi many years back and was completely wrong—it appears to be fine among people I know. It’s completely reasonable that I may be wrong again. Have you found that cryonics is socially acceptable, or do you just think it’s important to change its reputation?
I have found that anything is socially acceptable so long as you effectively signal that your non-conformity is a choice, not a result of an inability to conform or a way of coping with fear of rejection. Weird is NEVER OK with successful people. Deliberately different is ALWAYS OK so long as you are willing to not draw attention to it all the time.
Example. Vibrams with a suit are generally the best attire for most formal situations in my experience. You show that you are able and willing to conform, not psychologically unable to do so, but you also show that you aren’t afraid of the penalties for not conforming and that you will stand up for some principles some of the time. That’s attractive. The devil classically does it, in myths where he can/will take any form and disguise himself perfectly except for retaining cloven hooves, a tail and/or some similar indication of his identity.
So the trick to doing what you suggest is to conform on most axes, but be obviously non-conformist about the things you care about in a confident, but not confrontational way?
Ew. I really hope no one seriously does that. Especially in a courtroom.
Of course not in a courtroom. That’s not “most formal situations” but rather almost literally a contest to publicly display willingness to conform to elite norms and generally to submit.
Can you elaborate on this? It seems obviously wrong to me.
I also don’t understand how wearing Vibrams with a suit to a formal occasion signals anything but lack of fashion sense and being unaware of social norms. I mean, sure, if you’re in charge, you can wear whatever you want, but if you’re not in charge, someone seeing you wear footwear that doesn’t go with the clothes will just think you don’t know how to dress appropriately.
It’s a matter of how far you push it. It wouldn’t belong at a funeral or an opera, but it works well in any situation where a suit would be desirable but not close to mandatory. You want to signal awareness but lack of fear, not insensitivity. Vibrams aren’t something that someone could wear by mistake, or out of carelessness. Pushing things somewhat farther, you could be formally dressed with a very conspicuous fake tattoo.
I’m wondering how much the vibrams + business suit works because you’re dealing with geeks, so that they’re responsive to a weird/cool/potentially practical combination—something which I don’t think would go over well with mainstream bankers.
It works with a variety of types, not just geeks, as do the fake tattoos. It might not work with heirarchy climbing types, especially with the fearful types who climb a little way up a heirarchy and then sit there unable to go further, but I think its frequently a mistake to have anything to do with such people anyway except when absolutely necessary. You can’t influence their behavior with ideas, friendship or passion, only with fear of being ostracized or (to a much lesser extent) penalized.
Unfortunately, the Vibrams-and-suit look is derivative and geeky, not original; but the principle (even applied using Vibrams) certainly works for me.
So you will be wearing Vibrams at the Singularity Summit?
(there is actually some legitimate market demand for barefoot type shoes that are styled appropriately to be worn formally)
There are Vivo Barefoots, which are probably more appropriate.
I talk about the idea with a lot of people, and no one seems to think poorly of me for wanting to do it, though many people say they wouldn’t want to. I just don’t see it as that weird or not socially acceptable.
I wonder if there is a measurable talent distribution? Are any of the really famous hackers also cryonicists, or open to the idea?
Come to think of it, I haven’t heard of any.
Too bad. If there was a link between being a good hacker and being a cryonicist, that would make it an easier sell.
That’s an interesting question. Intense, good hackers might be more open to it than it’s-a-job-programmers, if only because people less mainstream in one area often are in others. I really have no idea. I’ll do an informal survey of people I know online (hackers) and people at my work (programmers). I’ve seen P.J. Eby posting to the python development list, so I’d label him a hacker. What is your opinion on cryonics, pjeby?
I’m a hacker, good at it, and signed up for cryonics. I also know of at least one other hacker who is signed up, and another who is in the process of being signed up.
There’s Hal) Finney, for one. Not sure if he counts as “famous”, though he’s at least famous enough to merit a Wikipedia article, and he surely qualifies as a “good hacker”.