Liquiduz
Snake (level 3)
nani?
Posts: 1,335
|
Post by Liquiduz on Dec 6, 2005 21:02:28 GMT -5
There has been a way ceveloped so that you can be preserved by "vitrification". (not freezing) Source and info: www.alcor.org/ I wanna know what you guys think of this if they were to improve on making humans be preserved longer... Good idea? Bad Idea? Would you do it?
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Dec 7, 2005 1:13:02 GMT -5
People should die. Harsh maybe, but we shouldnt preserve ourselfs its unnatural. And if everyone keeps living untill there 100 were going to have heaps of problems for example were all going to have to work untill were 70 before we can retire.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Jackyl on Dec 7, 2005 1:34:24 GMT -5
Bad news, Anthony. Everyone on this board will most likely have to work until probably past that age if they can since the average life expectancy is always going up, thereby sapping the reserves of things such as Social Security. Back when Social Security was first instated during Roosevelt's presidency, the average life expectancy was 65. Guess at which age you were able to draw Social Security at? Yep, 65. So there were a lot fewer people using the system. Now, there's a lot more, leading to such things as Social Security reserves being completely sapped by 2017....? (Is that the correct predicted date, anybody?)
As for cyrogenic preservation, I've read that the body must be preserved within MINUTES, no more than 10 (possibly, I'm foggy on the exact number) because the brain dies very fast after death.
Excuse me for that Social Security history lesson.
|
|