Why is cryonics not an option B?
Not only because the slowing down of aging does not cancel other cases of death and you need to take care in advance. I would even argue that cryonics is not an A/B option, when we are making equal advances in antiaging and cryonics. It’s actually an option A.
Because the approval of cryonics, all actions aimed at prolonging life follow logically. Cryonics is the cold heart of transhumanism, the desire to fight for life at any cost.
BTW there’s no such urgent fierceness in "maintaining a healthy period of life" (ugh).
Cryonics is a working technology. It is clear that it is impossible to revive anyone now, but it is already possible to freeze the deceased and store them.
By the way, the main argument against cryonics is that you cannot unfreeze anyone right now. That is a foolish argument. Of course, it is impossible and will still be impossible in 10 years from now. But in a hundred years, no one knows how powerful AI will to restore a personality. Until we know more, let the body lie, it doesn't bother anyone.
Cryonics is the central node of life extension and digital immortality (we would also need self-description for that).
In cryonics, there is a phased approach: first, they learn how to properly freeze and unfreeze organs for transplantation, which is also useful by itself, and then the technology will reach the brain.
But, nevertheless, the most important that cryonics is an uncompromising ethical position. This is a pronounced absolutization of the value of a human life. The same resurrection of the forefathers of the Fyodorov Common Cause. In general, the Fyodorov Museum combines a cryonics company with digital immortality features and a research institute.
#cryonics #science #transhumanism
————————————————————————————
https://openlongevity.org
————————————————————————————
Facebook / openlongevity
Instagram / openlongevity
Discord / discord
LinkedIn / open-longevity
Twitter / openlongevity
Telegram https://t.me/OpenLongevity_en