View Poll Results:

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Not me, I'm having too much fun the way I am

    4 12.90%
  • Not me, I don't want to come back and have everyone be old and the world gone to hell

    9 29.03%
  • Yes, but just for five years

    3 9.68%
  • Yes, but only ten years or until a definite cure is available

    7 22.58%
  • Yes, freeze me for as long as it takes!

    8 25.81%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: How many of you would freeze yourselves?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Argao, Cebu, Philippines
    Posts
    6,864

    How many of you would freeze yourselves?

    If we had mature, inexpensive cryotechnology that could put you in a deep freeze until the cure, how many of you would do it?

    ~See you at the SCIWire-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion ~

  2. #2
    Senior Member Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Argao, Cebu, Philippines
    Posts
    6,864

    Forty-seven views ...

    but only six votes. I wonder why people take the time to read a poll but don't vote. No wonder we're still in these chairs!!!

    ~See you at the SCIWire-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion ~

  3. #3
    Senior Member Scorpion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,896
    You're choices didn't include mine: If we had the technology to freeze someone and revive them later, we'd have a cure for SCI.

    ~Rus

    "Because you're not promised tomorrow." ~ Stuck Mojo

  4. #4
    Senior Member Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Argao, Cebu, Philippines
    Posts
    6,864

    I don't think cryotechnology is as sophisticated as the SCI cure

    They've successfully revived a dog after seventy-two hours in the deep freeze. The show I watched said the dog appeared normal but because it doesn't speak they couldn't know for sure. Plus, it's a purely hypothetical poll designed to gauge our interest in a cure vs. continuing our current lives the way they are. Takes a little imagination, I guess.

    ~See you at the SCIWire-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion ~

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Ridgecrest,CA.USA
    Posts
    1,537
    It would piss me off if I was frozen for 5-10 years and then get thawed and still nothing's changed regarding the "cure." I would rather be awake, looking toward the future.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Saskatoon, Sask. Canada
    Posts
    154

    70 % water

    Greetings

    I haven't seen the article about the dog, but I was led to believe this is impossible because our body (including our cells) is mostly water and freezing expands the cells, rupturing the membrane, thus destroying/killing all cells. I could be wrong.
    Dr. Young will most likely know the correct answer.

    Thanks, Paul

  7. #7
    Paulsaks, cryotechnology has overcome some of the problems that you mention. You have to put in a form of anti-freeze to keep down ice crystal formation. The main problems are still:

    1. they still have not been able to completely eliminate all forms of damage, particularly to the brain.

    2. freeze storage of tissues does not eliminate all possibility of damage to the DNA. This is one of the reasons why even frozen cells or embryos do not really last much longer than a few years without damage.

    3. the thawing procedure is quite complicated.

    Wise.

  8. #8
    Member sextonjt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Fort Myers, FL USA
    Posts
    59

    Just microwave on low for 5-6 minutes

    Originally posted by Wise Young:

    3. the thawing procedure is quite complicated.

    Wise.
    Doctor Young has quite a way with understatement. Saying that the thawing procedure is complicated is rather like saying that falling off a cliff is a great experience, except for the little problem of the sudden deceleration at the end. - Joe

  9. #9
    I HAVE FOUR CHILDREN, I LOVE THEM TO MUCH TO VOLUNTERRILY GOINTO A FREEZE. I AM NOT HAVING A BLAST THE "WAY I AM", BUT TO BE AWAY FROM THE KIDS AND MY HUSBAND WOULD BE TERRIBLE. YES, I AM AMBULATORY INCOMPLETE AND COMPARED TO MANY HERE MY LIFE IS A PICNIC, BUT NOT AS IT ONCE WAS. I SPENT YEARS IN A CHAIR AND AM USING ONE THESE DAYS BECAUSE OF SURGERY. STILL, I WOULDN'T WANT TO MISS A DAY AWAY FROM MY FAMILY.
    SO JEFF, NO VOTE FROM ME, JUST A LONG WINDED ANSWER. BTW, WHEN YOU AND YOUR BRIDE HAVE KIDS, I WAGER THAT YOU WOULD MAKE THE SAME CHOICE!!!

  10. #10
    Senior Member Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Argao, Cebu, Philippines
    Posts
    6,864
    Cheesecake - I believe the best answer for you would be #2. Designing a poll actually takes more time and thought than I had to put into this one. Missing loved ones is, I'm sure, the #1 reason not to consider a freeze. My wife is younger than me and we don't have kids, yet it still would be a really hard decision for me. Plus, life-extending technology might one day be another way to beat the long wait for a cure and get something out of life on our feet instead of from a chair.

    But, this was a hypothetical poll imperfect in its choices and only designed for a rough estimation of how people feel. I'll mark you down for #2, lol.

    ~See you at the SCIWire-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion ~

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •