philosophy, cryonicsGiven the lack of belief in a higher power and an afterlife, are there any rational objections to cryonics, beyond economic (ie, I have more important things to spend money on) ones?
I’d think the main objection is plausibility/feasibility: cryonics doesn’t work!
Consider: do you have any objections (other than economic) to faster-than-light travel?
I don’t see what this has to do with atheism.
There is no evidence that you can freeze and resuscitate a human brain while preserving memories and personality, and many solid scientific reasons to think it won’t work with current technology.
I did my doctoral studies in physical organic chemistry, and some years later started looking into cryonics after some friends connected with Alcor began pushing me to join up.
What I found was that pretty much every scientist who’s looked into it, and doesn’t have a vested interest, agrees that current or foreseeable techniques will inevitably cause damage on a molecular or cellular level. Cryonics organizations try to limit that via cryoprotectants, but since no experiments have been done that actually froze and successfully revived human brains, there’s no evidence that you’d even wind up with a functioning brain, let alone someone with the same personality. To the best of my knowledge, the only experiments involving freezing and thawing have been done on human organs other than the brain (which don’t contain memories), or animal brains that were simply examined for ice crystal damage but not actually revived.
When pressed to explain this, I discovered that cryonics advocates are, by and large, not scientists. There also appears to be a dearth of articles about cryonic preservation of human brains in credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals. And unfortunately, their explanations of why this damage won’t pose a problem all involve technologies that don’t exist yet.
Perhaps technological advances will make cryonics viable in the future, but I would bet a lot of money that anybody who’s been preserved so far will never be revived.
Cryonics requires a different kind of faith from the faith that comes from theism. With cryonics, the patient believes that whatever is killing him (or her) might someday be curable.
This is arguably as great a leap of faith as a declaration that some deity exists. There are just too many unknowns about what the future of medicine might hold. And if the source of whatever is killing you is another organism (as opposed to a poison) then it overlooks the possibility that the organism will have evolved substantially between now and when the disease it manifests will be cured.
I would love to know if any polls exist among atheists about (1) the degree to which we fear death and (2) what we would like done with our bodies after we die. Among fellow atheists with whom I’ve spoken, most of us aren’t all that afraid of dying and a combination of organ donation, cremation, and donation to scientific research are among the most popular uses for our bodies after we die. (at least, as I said, as a part of my own very unscientific and informal polling). If my observations hold up among the atheist community at large, I should think that cryonics is, to say the least, inconsistent with this sentiment.
I would argue that, while our drive for self-preservation is strong, there is a point at which pursuit of an extended existence becomes irrational. Suppose the extreme case of immortality. What human mind could remain sane for eternity? In a more realistic case, it is possible for someone to prefer to make peace with their family and come to accept their mortality than to hope (or fear) to awaken in an unfamiliar time in an unfamiliar world. In this time they would have outlived everyone they knew and loved and in this world anything they had tied to their identity would no longer hold meaning.
There are ways I’d rather not die, and I would rather it be put off for quite a while, but I would prefer to quit while I’m ahead. I do not see acceptance of mortality as contrary to reason.
The objection that springs to mind is economic, though not in terms of wasting money. Rather, as an atheist who affirms that all lives should be held equal, it seems that if there were a technology that could extend life, all people should have a right to access that technology.
This would fall in line with economic justice theories, however in terms of cryonics and knowing if it should be construed as a right, the Center for Economic & Social Justice points out:
One definition of justice is "giving to each what he or she is due." The problem is knowing what is "due".
For the sake of argument, lets assume cryonics works and can indefinitely extend one's organism. Although there may be argument from more self-centered (please forgive the negative connotation on that phrase*) atheists, the principal of balance in Social Justice would have issue with the difficulties in the poor getting access to cryonics. "This principle is violated by unjust barriers to participation, by monopolies or by some using their property to harm or exploit others." The unjust barrier in cryonics is certainly likely to be monetary, as the cost for freezing and maintenance, unless otherwise funded, would be prohibitive for the poorer classes.
For the Christian, heaven and hell are socially just economically speaking; the only cost is what you have done with your life. For cryonics, there is a barrier to entry, which denies what could be construed as a right to preservationn (i.e. in the US. the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness")
Mind you, this is an objection not to the technology but to its accessibility and rate of adoption; it seems likely the deployment of the technology would inevitably be too slow for the Earth's population. To clarify this "objection" further: disagreement, complaint, question, reluctance. My objection, in the sense of concern, is that the technology would be developed in a socially inequitable way. My objection does not inveigh against cryonics generally, but voices a matter of concern. It is possible that free market forces would not distribute this technology equitably, and social equity should be on guard for this. This could also be an argument for governmental alleviation (i.e. subsidies) for the technology's development
*Take it with a grain of salt that I understand that not all atheists will necessarily agree on theories of economic/social justice, but the sentiment seems to encompass a hearty plurality of atheists.
Are there any arguments FOR cryonics that are not ultimately economic?
Any argument against cryonics that is not based on supernatural arguments (e.g. the existence of an immortal soul) is compatible with atheism.
It is possible, for example, to assert that cryonics is unethical or immoral without an appeal to gods or any other supernatural authority. I’m not familiar with any of these arguments, and so can’t postulate whether they are sound.
There is also the entirely sound argument that cryonic preservation of a mature human has never been demonstrated to work, therefore subjecting oneself to it absent greater risk (e.g. terminal illness) is arguably unwise. This does not require atheism, just rational thinking, but it’s compatible since it does not require a supernatural element to be valid.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.