| Num | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | i do not think that science will ever be able to extend the life span significantly, because we will never be able to overcome the problem of telomeres (bits at the ends of chromosomes) being lost each time a cell divides. Altering DNA is not the answer and that will also have vast ethical implications. | 2006-03-19 13:19:11 |
| 15 | I believe it could be possible, but we all have a time of death set out for us, and when that time is up, nothing can fight against that and win i.e. when God decides it's our time 'to go' then it's just our time to go, and nothing can change that. | 2006-03-21 04:20:37 |
| 33 | should be actively persued, makes loved ones near for longer period of time. | 2006-03-27 14:10:23 |
| 42 | Extending life to about 100 is fine. After that, it is useless. Either way we are all destined to die because of sin. Whatever man tries to do to defy God, it may only seem to work for a while. But, eternity after death is so much more important than life on earth. The Bible says that instead of investing in this material life, we ought to invest in eternal life (life after death, not eternal life on earth). It also says that one day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Whether people believe it or not, want it or not, it WILL happen. The Bible is true and has proved itself countless of times, one of them being lasting through the ages without fault. So, my point is, God has put us on this Earth for a reason, to glorify him, not ourselves. This is the secret to true joy and happiness, not living forever. | 2006-03-28 23:10:18 |
| 51 | Question 24. may benifit from having unsure as an option | 2006-04-02 00:54:35 |
| 52 | I believe that cryonics is a dream that uses the fear of death to enrich the practitioners. | 2006-04-02 07:13:50 |
| 56 | I think your survey questions have it backwards. According to the bible death entered into the world because of Adam and eves sins. So death is the unnatural state. I think most Christains are opposed to living forever because they want to see god and their loved ones(it goes against their overall scheme). | 2006-04-03 06:40:01 |
| 57 | (8) How do you think life in 100 years will compare to life today? Maybe this should read quality of life... | 2006-04-03 07:06:22 |
| 58 | Interesting survey and website. | 2006-04-03 08:21:19 |
| 63 | It seems to me that life extension is in the pursuit of preventing death which is impossible, and in my opinion not the purpose in our lives. The fact that we have an unlimited amount of things to do in a limited amount of time gives our lives meaning. There are other aspects to our lives such as eliminating error by striving for perfection that too seem hopeless because humankind is the epitome of imperfection, however this example upholds our diginity as human beings. On the other hand, the race to prolong life and ultimately achieve immortality removes all meaning. | 2006-04-04 08:06:03 |
| 73 | Question 22 there is no "not applicable" choice. I have no doubt that this will be done, but simply have no interest in it. When I'm done here, I will have other places to go and other things to explore. The only thing that interests me here, is learning what I'm attached to and removing that attachment. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't be here at all. There are much better places to exist and much more interesting things to investigate. | 2006-04-08 11:12:41 |
| 75 | We should make efforts to extend our lives as much as possilble as long as the extension results in us being able to enjoy living. | 2006-04-08 16:44:30 |
| 76 | is a giant step to mankind | 2006-04-08 16:52:28 |
| 78 | This survey appears to have multiple goals, including seeing what people know/believe about cryonics as a possible life extension technology. I'm curious why you did not include similar questions re. supplements/dietary changes, e.g. sirtuins, caloric restriction, HGH, etc. | 2006-04-09 22:14:19 |
| 80 | Growing up is so much more rewarding. I know it's unpopular, but so is just about everything else sensible. I expect the "mainstream" interest in life extension to die out when the Boomers do. Most Gen-Xers are similarly damaged and unmatured, but they were damaged at an early age, and more of them don't seem to care for life under corporations enough to want more of it. | 2006-04-10 17:39:21 |
| 86 | I figure I have one opportunity at life and in death. I certainly wouldn't want to cheat either one. Kurt Skoglund | 2006-04-12 17:15:04 |
| 95 | Q16: Well, no matter who answers the question, the answer should be "Yes, cryogenics is a strategy for life extension". Because, if cryogenics and reanimation are successful, one could awake in the future where life-span could possibly be extended. I'm not saying it will work, but it is definitely a "strategy". Q20: I'm no expert, but I would guess a few hours max until the brain gets damaged from the lack of oxygen. Q21: Again I'm no expert, but I would think there could be a lot of things happening to the USA (where most, if not all, cryogenics companies are located) before somebody decides to awaken the cryogenized-people. How long will it take until they'll be awaken? No one knows yet (or do we already know how to? and somebody's been hiding that technology?). But assuming we do not know how to reanimate the frozen-ones now, it might take 50, 100, 200 years before we'll be able to reanimate them. And a lot of things could happen in a mere 50 years: wars, economic decline, power- failures, new laws (banning cryogenics???), cryogenic might become an obsolete technology, etc, etc... That's why I would think that the chance of being revived is small. But I'm not saying it's impossible. And vitrification technology seems to be working. Q23: well yeah, the point is "do I have enough faith in cryogenics, knowing that we don't have the method of reanimating me any time I'd want?" So I'm still thinking about it as my "last option". Q24: God or the Creator... yeah well, something must have happened so that the universe and the matter inside of it do "exist", right? But "God" is definitely not Jesus nor Buddha nor Mohammed nor Joseph Smith nor Zoroaster, etc... | 2006-04-15 08:24:37 |
| 97 | Regarding the 'other religion,' I classify myself as a Deist. | 2006-04-16 02:28:49 |
| 98 | Cryonics is basically an insurance gamble at this point in time. It is not death that should be feared but senescence. Death from something is inevitable. The likelihood that physical immortality is going to happen in this lifetime makes putting most if not all your resources into serious biological life extension technologies a priority. Cryonics is a waste of funds. | 2006-04-16 04:42:02 |
| 104 | I do believe that sometime this century, the human life span will be extended greatly. I also think cryonics will eventually succed. | 2006-04-18 00:16:48 |
| 107 | If our society evolves in a positive fashion, where scientific advances and thirst for knowledge are considered important, barring any major setbacks like global war or disaster, I believe that cryonics will work. In fact, the day that they learn how to successfully "re-animate" a person will be the day that it moves from the fringe element to mainstream in popularity and acceptance. Many people today seem put off by ideas which deviate so drastically from the status quo, but when these ideas become in fact true options, our survival instincts kick in and these same concepts become acceptable. Imagine suggesting to someone 100 years ago that one could transplant organs from a brain dead person to a living one, or that one could restart the heart with CPR or electricity...these concepts would be profoundly rejected as unnatural by the status quo of the day. But when these practices were brought into successful use, personal survival won over the armchair critics. I don't think that today if one went into cardiac arrest (clinical death) and was successfully resuscitated by medical personnel that they would awaken, angry at those who brought them back to life, or unhappy that their death had been interrupted. Food for thought. | 2006-04-18 02:33:17 |
| 112 | I took one of the first beta-test surveys and so was not sure if you wanted me to take the production survey also, so I took if for fun. I don't remember the specifics, but I found this version to more clear about what was being asked. | 2006-04-18 10:49:45 |
| 113 | I believe anything is possible,and cryonics should be looked at seriouslly as a way of preserving life. | 2006-04-18 10:50:23 |
| 128 | Cryonics is a misguided first step and all resources currently devoted to it should be devoted to furthering research into technologies with a (much) better chance of success. | 2006-04-18 17:11:01 |
| 132 | As an agnostic, beliefs are not something I identify with so questions like Does one believe in reincarnation or God are not questions I can answer with a yes or no or unsure or even on a scale ranging from definitely to no opinion. | 2006-04-18 19:19:06 |
| 135 | I don't think cryonics will ever be more than a warehousing solution that might allow a person to exist until more realistic life extension regimens are available. Vitamens Forever! (also herbs, mineral, amino acids, etc.) | 2006-04-18 21:02:30 |
| 137 | Do you publish an analysis of your survey results? Maybe I am just too healthy, but I don't have much interest in cryonics. I expect that the technology to preserve good health and remedy small deviations from it will eventually advance much faster than the ability to save people in already nearly terminal decay. The backlash against enormous medical resources being devoted primarily to the time just prior to death has already started. Those who seek life extension ala Ray Kurzeil (i.e., take good care of yourself, slow your aging) probably have a much better shot than those hold out hope for a someday miracle. I'll change my mind about cryonics when I see healthy and priviledged - and not necessarly elderly - individuals decide to take some time away in a depp freeze then plan to catch up with their friends 1/5/x years later! | 2006-04-18 20:32:15 |
| 138 | I am hoping that cryonics technology keeps pace with our need and ability to supply sufficient space and resources for survival. For all, not some. | 2006-04-18 21:36:02 |
| 140 | Seems more like a cryonics survey than a life extension survey. Seems pretty good though. | 2006-04-18 22:13:39 |
| 144 | In question 21, if you change the word "can" to "will," my estimate would go way down. | 2006-04-19 01:57:01 |
| 154 | Cryonics at the present state of the art is like buying a lottery ticket. But, hey, a lottery ticket to the afterlife? What a deal . . . I look forward to the future, which will have its challenges and adventures. I am concerned that our political and social systems are not yet mature enough to handle immortality, and that the transition period will be marked by substantial interpersonal violence possibly amounting to civil war. However, I think we can work something out. "Immortality is not for sissies." | 2006-04-19 14:06:31 |
| 156 | Why the obsession with cryonics? | 2006-04-19 15:13:37 |
| 161 | Was confused a little about question 16. While not technically a life extension strategy, cryonics would certainly extend one's life if it worked. So wasn't certain how to answer that one. | 2006-04-19 21:49:52 |
| 164 | I find Cryonics to be an interesting concept deserving of more investigation | 2006-04-20 02:04:14 |
| 166 | The question of God does not define word 'God' and therefore is impossible to answer, unless presupposing an idea according to a religion, which then would be different for every religion or person practicing that religion. If one defines God as, say, the totality of life then the word 'believe' obviously becomes meaningless. | 2006-04-20 04:58:27 |
| 169 | Questions 24 and 25 are too limiting. For Q24, you might wish to phrase it "Do you believe there is a God or Gods?" For Q25, I put no, even though in my faith there is a sort of "semi-reincarnation" which doesn't include the whole individual, but only a part of them. You should also add a question about household income and education level. | 2006-04-20 10:01:15 |
| 182 | Seems much like a cryonics survey. Unfortunately, I'm not certain cyronics has much utility at this time. | 2006-04-21 13:08:27 |
| 192 | > (21) What is your estimate of the chance that any of those cryonically preserved today can ever be revived in the future? Depends on the level of approximation to their original state. > (25) Do you believe in reincarnation? Physically everything is recycled, but no complex energy patters is transfered from one body to another. > (18) Do you believe future technology will be able to repair freezing damage? I would have answered "some" if possible. > (8) How do you think quality of life in 100 years will compare to quality of life today? Probably both ways in various outsets of humanity. I beleive humans will leave this earth and form colonies where quality of life would very much depend on circumstances. > (7) Would a lifespan of hundreds of years in youthful good health be boring? In some periods or cases probably. > (3) Do you think science will eventually be able to rejuvenate people over age 70 to the prime of life? To the prime of life AND BEYOND! ------------------------ Thanks for an excellent survey. I am looking forward to the results. Regards, Thor Christensen Volunteering for www.mprize.org | 2006-04-22 04:06:02 |
| 205 | interesting questions you are wanting to canvas us for. | 2006-04-23 03:16:41 |
| 209 | Other religion is vaguely Taoist and Discordian in my case. Question 24 doesn't define "God"---what if you believe that MANY gods exist, (even if only in the minds of believers)then the question cannot be adequately answered. | 2006-04-23 10:34:01 |
| 218 | I don't think I need cryonics, because I'm so young, that maintaining my body to the 1st generation of real antiaging medicine is not a problem. Thats good, because there is no a cryonics facility nowhere near the country I live in. If I would die today, there would be no way to preserve my body so that it might be revived some day. | 2006-04-24 00:31:49 |
| 219 | Regarding question 7, current life spans are frequently boring. It seems to me that how much boredom is in your life is largely up to you. There will always be some amount of unavoidable tedium, but with longer life you could (and IMHO SHOULD) take on much more risk. After all, you'd have all the time in the world to recover. | 2006-04-24 00:59:21 |
| 222 | It seems foolish NOT to try cryonics. | 2006-04-24 02:17:51 |
| 223 | Keep up the good work on getting the LE message out there. Thanks. | 2006-04-24 10:25:48 |
| 228 | My biggest problems with cryonics: Who would want to bring me back and why? I have a feeling that the answers might be for what I consider negative reasons. Why do I need to live a very extended (>500years)lifespan? Would I get bored? What do I hope to accomplish? If there is something beyond earthly life, and I delaying something good/natural? | 2006-04-24 13:08:47 |
| 229 | Q7 - Until we've had life times of 100s of years we cannot be sure. I hope it will not. Q8 - There are going to be gains and losses. On balance global wealth will make it better. Q20 - If a body is well perfused prior to circ' arrest the brain can cope with up to 15 mins of arrest. Use of novel first aid preservation agents such as zenon gas could improve this! Q24 - We know too little about the universe to speculate on the exsistance or nature of God | 2006-04-24 12:54:01 |
| 234 | Cryonics is a logical attempt when we are short on scientific knowledge, or when death is probable before scientific advances. However, the curent advance of science is brathtaking. The reluctance of U. S. politics to fund and support life extension research (stem cell, etc)is encouraging research in other locatioons (eg. Singapore) When this forign trend is successful, there will be mounting pressure for the US to bein serious research (eg. California) The eventual success of life extension is not a new idea. What is new, is the smell of possibilies for success. The future is tomorrow and it is 11:59 pm! | 2006-04-24 15:22:07 |
| 242 | Not an area of significant interest - I prefer to live life to the full under the conditions that abound now | 2006-04-24 19:15:31 |
| 250 | There is little point in signing up for cryonics if one's residential location or legal jurisdiction (or both) preclude effective preservation. There are organizational problems in cooling, transport and cryopresevation that need solving in order to make cryonics a reasonable 'bet' for many people. I live in Victoria, BC, Canada - it would be exceedingly problematic to arrange for effective cryopresevation from here. I plan to move to a more cryo-favourable location eventually, and am hoping that I don't need freezing before I make the move. | 2006-04-25 00:14:42 |
| 252 | Cryonics may be possible but I doubt the ability to enforce a 200 year old contract or a multi million dollar operation/procedure from beyond the grave when you have no living relative that knew you or would give a hoot if you came back to life. I think they will break the contract and throw a hell of a party in your name with the accumulated fortune.... Howard | 2006-04-25 01:34:11 |
| 253 | opened minded and willlng to learn more | 2006-04-25 02:49:48 |
| 254 | you have the right questions!!thank you | 2006-04-25 04:34:49 |
| 257 | Aubre De Gray is currently doing research on this. check him out. | 2006-04-25 07:38:07 |
| 263 | Most people make such a hash out of their lives that it's not surprising that life extension scares the daylights out of them. I don't believe life extension will result in either overpopulation or stagnating ideas, at least initially, because it will be embraced by relatively few souls with adventurous minds. As for cryonics, I'm not sure that freezing after death is the way to go; we need to come up with some form of suspended animation that a person can enter prior to death (which would also address the financial issue of getting at your money after you're 'dead'). Unfortunately, neither addresses the fact that future generations probably won't have much of an incentive to revive you... | 2006-04-25 12:14:07 |
| 273 | I tried to join alcor, but i live in the netherlands, it is very difficault to get a medical file in englisch transfered,,,and over sea paymentship is very risky....so i think alcor have to do more his best to win people like me from over sea... | 2006-04-25 14:24:27 |
| 274 | I think the biggest problem people think there will be with indefinite lifespans is over crowding, but last time I checked space was pretty huge. | 2006-04-25 14:26:25 |
| 275 | Cryonics is like reawakening the dead, with all of the investments being made in this new field of science, how sure are we that people can be brought back to life and FULLY?!! | 2006-04-25 14:08:03 |
| 283 | I only have knee-jerk opinions on most of these questions. Truth is, as far as I can tell, there is virtually no informed and vigorous discussion of the social/economic/environmental issues attached to the quest for significant life extension (i.e., life spans of more than 120 years on the average). Or perhaps I'm just not paying attention - but I seriously doubt that most people in the USA have given the slightest thought to the implications of, say, 150 yr avgerage life spans. And I believe that the issues are enormously complicated and certain to become highly inflammatory. Thanks. Don | 2006-04-25 16:43:40 |
| 293 | the question about freezing damage and repair to the brain is somewhat ambiguous. freezing damage to the brain might be repaired, but could leave the patient lacking some or all memories, and/or with repairable brain damage. i believe that any damage will at some point be repairable, but this doesn't help with any memories that may have been lost. so perhaps two questions on this subject might be more enlightening. thanks, good survey. | 2006-04-25 18:02:48 |
| 296 | Re age: 15 Re religion: Despite not believing in reincarnation, I think Buddha was right about pretty much everything else. You should definitely have an option for people who believe in some non-reincarnated afterlife (not me, but the majority of Westerners!) | 2006-04-25 19:11:59 |
| 304 | Seems very big on cryonics and nearly ignores alternatives. Several questions could do with a "probably not" choice; "possibly" is numericaly similar but has different nuances. | 2006-04-25 22:33:53 |
| 309 | consider it a real possibility and have promotional material from alcor. | 2006-04-26 00:02:00 |
| 313 | Cryonics will be doable in a few decades, but current freezing techniques will likely cause a substantial loss of memories when the subject is reassembled. I wouldn't be sure enough to be me if I was frozen at Alcor and then restored. I think such a procedure would at best be akin to cloning "with a little extra". Additionally I am worried that if I was restored in some future I'd be copyrighted property rather than a citizin. I'd prefer not to be awakened in a future that treats me as a slave and wouldn't give me any choice in the matter. I think most reawakening processes with be uploads. Hence currently I don't think the *massive* investment (100K+) in cryonics is worth it for me. I am way too poor. I don't trust US laws in the next decades. I think it's too likely superstitious/envious state laws in the US will thaw cryonics subjects because of some frivolous legal issue. Plus I think the freezing bills could become too high in a peak-oil unstable era prompting thawing. Finally if I could legally end my life in a state of wasting disease and be frozen right (within minutes) away I would be a bit more optimistic on cryonics. | 2006-04-26 01:30:39 |
| 318 | It is possible that some day technology will be able to revive some of the people in cryonic stasis, but who and why will do it? | 2006-04-26 02:21:14 |
| 323 | Almost surely, technology will develop to enable cryonics and to re-animate people after freezing, but will cryonics businesses honor their commitments in the future? | 2006-04-26 05:24:29 |
| 324 | The technical problems with cryonics are massive at present but, given the development rate, I expect will be overcome. The political problems of revival are probably much worse. This is especially true if current trends of political involvement by religious nuts continues. Not only will it be necessary to take operations off shore, it may ultimately be necessary to go off planet to have any chance. | 2006-04-26 06:03:22 |
| 325 | I'm a Taoist... it's not a religion, but a way of living. I don't believe in an external god, but rather that all life is part of god; we all create, we all destroy, we are the ultimate masters of our futures. | 2006-04-26 06:40:22 |
| 334 | You should have a question regarding at what age a person would like to appear when they have indefinite lifespan. | 2006-04-26 13:34:59 |
| 345 | Question number 5, "How long do you think it will take science to enable people to live 200 years in good health?" is underspecified. Is it asking how many years until a person is born that will, 200 years later, still be alive, or is it asking at what point can ANY person alive theoretically live until 200? | 2006-04-26 16:38:04 |
| 347 | Preferred age range 10,000 - 100,000 | 2006-04-26 17:47:57 |
| 356 | for question 24) Do you believe there is a God - add the option "not yet". I'd pick that one. | 2006-04-26 21:15:13 |
| 359 | I have purchased a life insurance policy for the sole purpose of paying for cryonic preservation. I have not yet made my final decision about which cryonics organization to join. I will do so within the next couple months. | 2006-04-26 23:57:56 |
| 363 | Curent organisations seem not to provide services in my country. | 2006-04-27 05:18:13 |
| 370 | It will require genetic manipulation and "designer babies" to be more than a temporary medical procedure. That will make it about midcentury and nobody now alive will live hundreds of years. | 2006-04-27 14:53:52 |
| 374 | Seems like a gimmick survey to get more information so a company can sell more cryonics services to the public. I would not have taken this survey if I had known this was a come on with cryonics behind it. | 2006-04-27 16:27:29 |
| 378 | Too much interest in religion; I neither know, nor care if there is any kind of god | 2006-04-27 20:00:02 |
| 379 | Some questions ie. "Do you think science will eventually be able to cut the rate of aging in half?" are a little vague on time frames. Given enough time, and assuming the progression of scientific/social advancements, wouldn't anything become highly likely? | 2006-04-27 21:52:32 |
| 382 | FYI, I enjoyed your cause of death statistics! | 2006-04-28 03:34:19 |
| 384 | Technology will make ctryonics obsolete before anyone will make use of it. | 2006-04-28 08:00:24 |
| 393 | I bvelieve that we will be amazed at the rate at which technological progress will continue to acelerate. Aging is a dissease that needs to be cured. Overpopulation will not be an issue, as historical data shows that birth rates decline in populations as the life expectancy time line increases. | 2006-04-28 20:35:35 |
| 401 | I am 1000s of miles from any cryonic facility. I am poor, disabled and on benefit. The people here are scared of anything untraditional and would not agree with my secret desire to live longer than considered "normal". | 2006-04-29 16:41:11 |
| 404 | I doubt that science will ever be allowed to do some of these things due to fear. Meh, fight the good fight. Good luck. I am such a pessimist. Heh. | 2006-04-30 03:54:17 |
| 405 | A) In most of Europe currently cryonics is not allowed by law, so we first have to fight for our right to have nearby cryonics facilities. B) 150.000 buys a full-body suspension in 2006. Perhaps 150.000.000 will not even buy a condolence card in 2040. Who knows. Let's ask an insurance advisor, or better: lets ask your Ben Bernake about it ;-) | 2006-04-30 08:07:19 |