Talk:Cryonics

Elon Musk - Citation & article reformatting

The opening paragraph of this Article states, "Cryonics is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community. It is generally viewed as a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery."

The citations are from 2002, 1992, and 2013, respectively. Said opinions, quotes, and citations belong under the History section as they range from 10 to over 30 years old.

A more recent citation from 2020 follows (Google "Elon Musk Cryonics"). It's about 2 minutes of your time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+cryonics&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&sca_esv=9b41ab9b54a73dba&source=android-home&sxsrf=ACQVn0_iPjx49FuRDEv7qDOuC6anGB89SA%3A1706814842412&source=hp&ei=eu27ZeHmFruckPIP0L-IqAQ&udm=&oq=&gs_lp=EhFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocCIAKgIIAjIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzINEC4YxwEY0QMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJ0joDlAAWABwAXgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEByAEAqAIP&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:17e6285a,vid:MSIjNKssXAc,st:0 Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been raised before. Elon Musk is not a reliable source for anything except Elon Musk's views. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I could argue historical quotes from lesser known, less influential, and less educated people on this subject from 10-30+ years ago is a less reliable source than Elon, who is more known, more influential, and more educated on this subject...and, therefore more credible.

Matter of fact, that is my argument.

That's mainstream.

I'm not recommending removal of the existing antiquated citations/opinions, those should certainly be perserved...under History. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk is not "educated on this subject." The fact you think so is extremely telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources for anything. And neither is Elon Musk.

The suggestion to move citations to History is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Are those citations not history?

I'm attempting to collaborate with all of you to update, and maintain, truth in this article.

Selective omissions because individuals hold an opinion that Elon is not reliable shocks me.

As for "non-starter", please show me your willingness to collaborate by telling me what counts as a starter. Need statements from PhDs? MDs? MBAs? JDs? No problem, just let me know so we can get to a neutral and truthful article. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to get some clue. Like, read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia does not deal in your "truth", but reflects accepted knowledge. There is nothing to show the accepted knowledge on cryonics (it's a load of old fraudulent crap) is dated. That is the view now. Bon courage (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We need reliable sources as outlined in WP:RS. For a topic like this, to make the article say what you seem to want to make it say, that would mean peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals. We don't do testimonials, celebrity, MBA, or otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your professional response, relative to other responses I've received. The rules of engagement (WP:RS) are helpful as I learn how to collaborate with you.

Please review this book/information.

Cryostasis Revival: The Recovery of Cryonics Patients through Nanomedicine

© 2022 Robert A. Freitas Jr.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Cryostasis_Revival.html?id=MzbozgEACAAJ

It has been made freely available as a PDF download to the public as part of a US 501c3's mission to educate the public, available at this link:

https://www.alcor.org/cryostasis-revival/?noamp=mobile

I'm not trying to hide my identity, you likely already know who this is. I do NOT represent the publisher/Alcor Life Extension Foundation ("Alcor"), a tax-exempt 501c3. I do NOT receive financial benefit from this book or from Alcor; however, I was the CEO of said organization (until May 2022) when the decision was made to freely educate the public. I argue this ENTIRE "Cryonics" Wikipedia article needs a full review and rewrite in light of new information provided herein.

Please find these quotes in the free copywrite book:

"These results suggest that, when cryonics is carried out under favorable conditions, and when ice formation is prevented by vitrification, it has every appearance of preserving the structure and the molecular inventory of the brain."

- Gregory M. Fahy, Ph.D.

January 2022

(Current President of the Society for Cryobiology)

"There is now an emerging scientific consensus on the feasibility of cryopreserving complex mammalian tissues, and the Society for Cryobiology is no longer openly hostile to cryonicists, though still eschewing cryonics as part of its professional mission."

-Society for Cryobiology

The sources of these quotes meet the definition of published, context of the facts weighs heavily in favor of reliability, and a rewrite of the entire article is warranted due to the age of this freely available book citation (which I notice it's not currently listed).

I appreciate your guidance by pointing me to WP:RS, as I am still new to Wikipedia.

How do we start the process of review and rewrite to present non-biased truth to the world?

Thanks in advance for your response.

<Overton Window> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A self published book is not a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal is not the requirement under WP:RS.

My submitted citation exceeds citation #3 (1992) from a non-scientist on every measure per WP:RS.

<Overton> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not. We do not use self published books as sources. If you read WP:RS and came away thinking that meets the requirements you have gravely misunderstood WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I did not publish the book, so that's moot. The author did not publish the book, so that's moot.

Yes, a US 501c3 freely published the book as part of their mission to educate the public.

That does not meet the definition of self-published.

Time's up. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to ask at WP:RSN, they will tell you the same. There is no way we can use that as a source. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

How long does it take for that book to be published? Ty in advance. <46> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

however, I was the CEO of said organization (until May 2022) when the decision was made to freely educate the public

Per WP:COI, you need to declare this on your user page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want a User Page, but ok.

Disclosed, COI not an issue. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is just a question for you (the one behind the screen). I'm not asking specifically about editing the article... I'm asking why you think/thought COI was important? Educate me, please...

Did you think there was potentially a benefit for me?

Ty in advance for your answer. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter why someone chose to remind you of the rules.

The rules apply whether or not someone reminds you, so you should just thank the person who reminds you and move on.

ApLundell (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you read WP:COI it explains why. We are concerned when people have personal ties to a subject, as it makes it more likely they are editing with a bias to promote said subject beyond what is reasonable for Wikipedia's purposes. Sometimes that means a financial benefit to said editor, but other times it's just because they're friends/co-workers who want to make the subject look better in the public eye. And Wikipedia is not here for promotional purposes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a non-starter because you're unilaterally trying to move quotes for reasons not based in Wikipedia policy. As Bon courage and MrOllie say, you need to familiarize yourself with our core policies and editing guidelines before making such suggestions.

Need statements from PhDs? MDs? MBAs? JDs?

No. We want reliable sources per that policy. Independent, secondary sources (not "statements" from individuals), preferably those with a history of fact-checking and reliable reporting. Not speeches from UFO proponents & their mouthpieces. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And since this is a fringe topic sources need to be WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk once said that aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. But for some reason they won't let me add that to Great Pyramid of Giza. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

or that some guy was a pedo? Bon courage (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Help w/refuting cit 3 plz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know there are outstanding tickets already, but I need help from this Wikipedia community to refute the original 1992 (Butler) source.

Rumor has it if the original source is successfully refuted this article can be rewritten relatively quickly. By asking for help, I'm not asking for someone to tell "me" how to refute the original source or direct me to the rules. I've already spent my personal $, T, and mental E in an attempt to contribute to this article, and help from experienced Wikipedians (sp?) is needed now, please. I'm asking for experienced member(s) of this community to help refute cit 3 so this article can get closer to current truth(s)/facts.

To be brief, Butler ('92) knew nothing about this subject when he wrote his book and lacks any credibility today. The original source contains <2 pages about Cryonics, Butler presents a personal opinion in his book, and the book is over 30 years old.

I've been told my profile has been marked as "tainted", I've been called bias, and I've been warned not to be annoying (whatever that means). That's fine, judge me as you wish. I think I've been patient enough to earn the right to request your help.

What matters more than how others see me is for others to have access to superior, current information on this Cryonics article. Even though the information presented herein is not "perfect", Wikipedia has built a great platform. I hold to the belief this community wants Wikipedia to present the most accurate information available. I don't sense my belief in this community is misplaced.

Is there an experienced leader in this community willing to be a fearless champion and refute the original source? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No, per WP:FORUM. This is a page for discussing improvements to the article, not for people to discuss the subject itself (including efforts to refute a source on your own).

If you do refute a source & get that refutation published, that would be relevant to discuss here. Until then, we can't do anything for you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

understood, ty Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That does seem like a weak source. The problem with your objection to that source is that there are many other good sources where a reputable scientist has claimed that cryonics is quackery. Removing that source won't achieve your obvious goal. You could improve the article by finding a better source that says the same thing. Lord knows, there are plenty to pick from.JordanSparks (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Call the vote. Please and thank you. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Wikipedia doesn't operate on votes. WP:NOTAVOTE. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protect edit request

The second paragraph uses patients in scare quotes, which seems to be editorializing. I don't like the use of the word patient anyway, as it implies that that cryonics companies have a medical duty of care, which they do not. I would propose changing "patients" to either "person" or "body", such as "the "patients" are clinically and legally dead." to "a person is clinically and legally dead." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.131.196 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Reverted. These are not "scare quotes", but delineate the term "patient" as one used (erroneously) by the vendors. Bon courage (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Anthropological View

Based on a speculative science, cryonics is controversial in scientific debate and can be better understood as an emergent death ritual along a social evolution of human culture and technology.

Belief in an afterlife, or second life, where the phenomenological body endures a transition or resurrection is recurrent across ancient tradition, religion and science fiction. However, the increasingly socialized language of cryotechnology in health and wellness treatments, contextualizes waking of the un/dead into the biosocial sphere, framing mortality as something akin to illness which can be controlled or cured.

Cryonics draws into question the boundaries of the sovereign self (Foucault cited in:Friedrich 2017)) and the individual body, challenging legal definitions of personhood (Falconer 2023). These boundaries, however, are not universal and ideas which limit the self within the dichotomy of Cartesian dualism are defined through western philosophy and law.

To understand the imprint of cryonics on the body politic (Nancy Scheper-Hughes 1987) it is useful to apply the Foucauldian definition of biopower. Ability to access and harness forms of cryotechnology (from cryostorage of food, blood or sperm) is historically bound to class, wealth and power. It is a life-enabling power central to health, fertility and treatment. In this sense, cryonics preservation is a mechanism in the ‘cold chain’ (Friedrich 2017) power structure with potential to produce, preserve but also restrict life.

References

Falconer, K 2023, 'Cryopreservation and the death of legal personhood', Mortality- Promoting the interdisciplinary study of death and dying, pp. 1–16.

Foucault, M 1997, “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976, Picador, New York.

Friedrich, E 2017, 'The Rise of Cryopower: Biopolitics in the age Cryogenic Life', in EK Joanna Radin (ed.), Cryopolitics: Frozen Life in a Melting World, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 59-66.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes, MML 1987, 'The Mindful Body: A Prolegomenon to Future Work in Medical Anthropology', Medical Anthropology Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6-41. PThornback (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources, but this reads like an argumentative essay, not a Wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Dubious

In 2009, writing in Bioethics, David Shaw examined cryonics. The arguments against it included changing the concept of death, the expense of preservation and revival, lack of scientific advancement to permit revival, temptation to use premature euthanasia, and failure due to catastrophe. Arguments in favor of cryonics include the potential benefit to society, the prospect of immortality, and the benefits associated with avoiding death. Shaw explores the expense and the potential payoff, and applies an adapted version of Pascal's Wager to the question.

This is a really strange paragraph. It seems to me like there is some conflation between arguments for/against the technology working, and arguments for/against the technology being morally good. They are different things! Obviously flying airplanes into skyscrapers works as a method of killing people -- but saying that 9/11 happened does not, in any reasonable world, mean you're arguing "in favor of" it. I think the practical questions of whether it works or is a scam etc should be separated from this. jp×g🗯️ 06:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems odd yes. From this edit[1] it seems like this was an attempt to condense a point that cryonics might encourage people with early-stage disease to off themselves so they could "benefit" from a cure after being cryonically revived from their death, but that if cryonics doesn't work it's just suicide which is not good. Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reasonable chance of revival, but cryonics could be useful to society for different reasons (e.g. archaeology of the future, medical research, and so on). Also, for terminally ill people euthanasia (by cryonics) is a valid option (at least in some countries).

E.g. keeping them frozen costs money, and if the institution keeping them frozen would go bankrupt, the frozen bodies will either be dumped or auctioned. I'm not saying it's likely to happen in the next three or four decades, but if we count centuries, it becomes at least probable. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)