Science desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 25

Is there a cryonic company that will freeze me while I'm still alive and healthy, and reanimate me 15 years later? If I arrest the aging process for 15 years this way, could I then pass for a Gen Z?

Could I have myself cryofrozen (without dying of another reason first) in 2025 with instructions to reanimate me in 2040 so that I could more convincingly pass for and live like someone born in the Gen Z generation?

What companies cryofreeze people who ask for it while still alive and healthy?

Or does such a cryonic plan and company exist anywhere in the world?

I wanted to be born in 2000, not the year I was actually born in. So if I get cryofrozen for enough years, I'll look as young as a Gen Z when I'm reanimated.

Lastly, Reddit's r/Cryonics subreddit's automoderator keeps glitching out because it keeps autoremoving any content of mine from there. I tried posting this question and above summary to other subreddits but their automod keeps autoremoving it too. Their persistent glitches kept bugging me enough to dust off the Wikipedian reference desk and post here again for the first time in many years. I used to be a regular on the refdesk, then moved to Reddit, and now I'm back. --2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No. As currently freezing a human adult, results in their death, as no resuscitation is possible. It would be some kind of murder to perform this, so only a crime syndicate would be willing. And then could you trust them for 15 years? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 15 years, you'd be just as deceased, pushing up daisies, no more, pining for the fjords. So what's trust got to do with it? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I feel bound to recommend that you watch Sleeper.Shantavira

Terraforming a planet around some distant star and setting up a population there sounds far easier and actually doable to me. Perhaps in the far future it'll be possible to create a new body and copy the brain fom one of those frozen blocks for it, or maybe set up an android with an artificial copied brain - but why would any people who could do that bother with anyone from this time, would it be ethical for us to try and make a Neanderthal clone? NadVolum (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a reference, try 'We don't yet have the know-how to properly maintain a corpse brain': Why cryonics is a non-starter in our quest for immortality. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you must understand that reanimation from cryogenic stasis is not actually possible at present

read all you can about longevity esp. power laws, best practice, established dietary / exercise ('longevity athletics / olympics') / supplementation practices,

although, best practice will vary depending on whether you are interested in youthful appearance and/or extension of what is called healthspan

it is all very possible, although you are fighting an uphill battle in america (and much is contingent on financial resources)

best of luck !!! 130.74.58.173 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can any insurance company make a cryonics bankruptcy insurance policy for companies that preserve bodies in cryogenic preservation vats so that even when the company goes bankrupt, their insurance policies will keep these vats running and bodies preserved?

...So that we can continue the hope and possibility of reanimating these bodies back to life when medical science advances and finds cures to reverse whatever they died from?

This topic was also autoremoved from r/Cryonics so that's why I'm bringing it here too. Thanks in advance. --2600:100A:B005:AFD5:B08A:71E6:8521:5D8E (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An insurance policy defines the amount of money to be paid to the holder of the policy when a specified contingency occurs. If the contingency is bankruptcy and the idea is to keep the company running, the amount should be larger than the prospectively unknowable debt to preferential creditors. It should be obvious that no insurance company can offer a policy with an unlimited payout. Apart from this, even an insurance for a sufficiently large amount cannot guarantee that the company or trustee will use the money paid out for the intended purpose. --Lambiam 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be a creditor? They're all dead and have no rights. NadVolum (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creditors of Instant Immortality (the bankrupt cryonics company, for short II) could be: (1) the tax office; (2) II's bank; (3) the company from which II hired its cryogenic equipment; (4) II's provider of liquid nitrogen; (5) II's lawyers; (6) scores of estates of frozen clients, legally presumed dead, who won a class action lawsuit against II. --Lambiam 11:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, is it April 1 already? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonics is such a blatant scam I don't understand how it is legal. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More blatant than (also legal) homeopathy? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More blatant than religion? 130.74.58.173 (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be. It's a tautology. --Askedonty (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A marginally better idea might be to create a testamentary trust fund, if you could find a willing trustee. I'm not sure how far into the future you might want this to extend (do frozen corpses have a "best before" date?) but a legal expert might advise on how to extend the trust beyond the lifetime of the trustee, and what incentives might be required for another person to accept that role. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where to verify a chemical compund name synonyms?

The ARM390 compound has multiple IDs, (some of?) which can be found at PubChem here:

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/9841259#section=Synonyms

There are two among them, which differ with one zero only: AR-M1000390 and AR-M100390. The difference seems too small to be just a coincidence, it looks like one must be a typo modification of the other.

Is there any way for a non-chemistry/medicine-professional to trace the origin of those specific symbols and learn whether they are actually the same, or genuinely different? --CiaPan (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The motivation for publishing this question here is it's not only me in doubt – another user called for discussion at Redirect discussion: AR-M100390. The sources refer to both names, so from the Wikpedia point of view both are valid, but... Out of curiosity, I just would like to know: are they independent, truly different? CiaPan (talk)

Usually, I would trust ChemSpider to validate such synonyms and that's where I'd send a non-expert. In this particular case, Chemspider seems to prefer AR-M1000390 but one possible source of misinformation/typo is this paper, which consistently uses AR-M100390 in the text but AR-M1000390 in the citation #23, which is correct at doi:10.1016/S0024-3205(03)00489-2. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest use of the name AR-M1000390 seems to be in a PhD thesis from 2003.^[1] The same name was used in a 2003 journal article in Life Sciences describing the results of this PhD thesis.^[2] The substance was synthesized by researchers from AstraZeneca R&D; their paper describing the design, synthesis, and pharmacological evaluation of the drug, published in 2000, does not use this name, but only the systemic name N,N-diethyl-4-(phenylpiperidin-4-ylidenemethyl)benzamide.^[3] Plausibly, the "AR" bit is short for "AstraZeneca R&D" and the whole was originally a code for internal use in the AstraZeneca lab. Subsequently:

AR-M1000390 was deposited on 2016-02-05; the source was the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY,^[4] which references the 2003 Life Sciences article.^[5]
The synonym ar-m100390 was deposited on 2017-09-13 by Springer Nature.^[6]
Yet another synonym: AR-M 1000390, deposited on 2024-11-14 by a chemical vendor.^[7]

--Lambiam 20:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, Mike Turnbull and Lambiam, for detailed info.

CiaPan (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]