Hubbry Logo
CryonicsCryonicsMain
Open search
Cryonics
Community hub
Cryonics
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cryonics
Cryonics
Cryonics
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Technicians preparing a body for cryopreservation in 1985

Cryonics (from Greek: κρύος kryos, meaning "cold") is the low-temperature freezing (usually at −196 °C or −320.8 °F or 77.1 K) and storage of human remains in the hope that resurrection may be possible in the future.[1][2] Cryonics is regarded with skepticism by the mainstream scientific community. It is generally viewed as a pseudoscience,[3] and its practice has been characterized as quackery.[4][5]

Cryonics procedures can begin only after the "patients" are clinically and legally dead. Procedures may begin within minutes of death,[6] and use cryoprotectants to try to prevent ice formation during cryopreservation.[7][8][better source needed] It is not possible to reanimate a corpse that has undergone vitrification (ultra-rapid cooling), as this damages the brain, including its neural circuits.[9][10] The first corpse to be frozen was that of James Bedford, in 1967.[11] As of 2014, remains from about 250 bodies had been cryopreserved in the United States, and 1,500 people had made arrangements for cryopreservation of theirs.[12]

Even if the resurrection promised by cryonics were possible, economic considerations make it unlikely cryonics corporations could remain in business long enough to deliver.[13] The "patients", being dead, cannot continue to pay for their own preservation. Early attempts at cryonic preservation were made in the 1960s and early 1970s; most relied on family members to pay for the preservation and ended in failure, with all but one of the corpses cryopreserved before 1973 being thawed and disposed of.[14]

Conceptual basis

[edit]

Cryonicists argue that as long as brain structure remains intact, there is no fundamental barrier, given our current understanding of physics, to recovering its information content. Cryonics proponents go further than the mainstream consensus in saying that the brain does not have to be continuously active to survive or retain memory. Cryonicists controversially say that a human can survive even within an inactive, badly damaged brain, as long as the original encoding of memory and personality can be adequately inferred and reconstituted from what remains.[12][15]

Cryonics uses temperatures below −130 °C, called cryopreservation, in an attempt to preserve enough brain information to permit the revival of the cryopreserved person. Cryopreservation is accomplished by freezing with or without cryoprotectant to reduce ice damage, or by vitrification to avoid ice damage. Even using the best methods, cryopreservation of whole bodies or brains is very damaging and irreversible with current technology.

Cryonicists call the human remains packed into low-temperature vats "patients".[16] They hope that some kind of presently nonexistent nanotechnology will be able to bring the dead back to life and treat the diseases that killed them.[17] Mind uploading has also been proposed.[18]

Cryonics in practice

[edit]

Cryonics is expensive. As of 2018, the cost of preparing and storing corpses using cryonics ranged from US$28,000 to $200,000.[19]

At high concentrations, cryoprotectants can stop ice formation completely. Cooling and solidification without crystal formation is called vitrification.[20] In the late 1990s, cryobiologists Gregory Fahy and Brian Wowk developed the first cryoprotectant solutions that could vitrify at very slow cooling rates while still allowing whole organ survival, for the purpose of banking transplantable organs.[21][22][23] This has allowed animal brains to be vitrified, thawed, and examined for ice damage using light and electron microscopy. No ice crystal damage was found;[24] cellular damage was due to dehydration and toxicity of the cryoprotectant solutions.

Costs can include payment for medical personnel to be on call for death, vitrification, transportation in dry ice to a preservation facility, and payment into a trust fund intended to cover indefinite storage in liquid nitrogen and future revival costs.[25][26] As of 2011, U.S. cryopreservation costs can range from $28,000 to $200,000, and are often financed via life insurance.[25] KrioRus, which stores bodies communally in large dewars, charges $12,000 to $36,000 for the procedure.[27] Some customers opt to have only their brain cryopreserved ("neuropreservation"), rather than their whole body.

As of 2014, about 250 corpses have been cryogenically preserved in the U.S., and around 1,500 people have signed up to have their remains preserved.[12] As of 2016, there are four facilities that retain cryopreserved bodies, three in the U.S. and one in Russia.[2][28]

A more recent development is Tomorrow Biostasis GmbH, a Berlin-based firm offering cryonics and standby and transportation services in Europe. Founded in 2019 by Emil Kendziorra and Fernando Azevedo Pinheiro, it partners with the European Biostasis Foundation in Switzerland for long-term corpse storage. The facility was completed in 2022.[29][30]

It seems extremely unlikely that any cryonics company could exist long enough to take advantage of the supposed benefits offered; historically, even the most robust corporations have only a one-in-a-thousand chance of lasting 100 years.[13] Many cryonics companies have failed; as of 2018, all but one of the pre-1973 batch had gone out of business, and their stored corpses have been defrosted and disposed of.[14]

Obstacles to success

[edit]

Preservation damage

[edit]

Medical laboratories have long used cryopreservation to maintain animal cells, human embryos, and even some organized tissues, for periods as long as three decades,[31] but recovering large animals and organs from a frozen state is not considered possible now.[32][21][33] Large vitrified organs tend to develop fractures during cooling,[34] a problem worsened by the large tissue masses and very low temperatures of cryonics.[35] Without cryoprotectants, cell shrinkage and high salt concentrations during freezing usually prevent frozen cells from functioning again after thawing. Ice crystals can also disrupt connections between cells that are necessary for organs to function.[36]

Some cryonics organizations use vitrification without a chemical fixation step,[37] sacrificing some structural preservation quality for less damage at the molecular level. Some scientists, like João Pedro Magalhães, have questioned whether using a deadly chemical for fixation eliminates the possibility of biological revival, making chemical fixation unsuitable for cryonics.[38]

Outside of cryonics firms and cryonics-linked interest groups, many scientists are very skeptical about cryonics methods. Cryobiologist Dayong Gao has said, "we simply don't know if [subjects have] been damaged to the point where they've 'died' during vitrification because the subjects are now inside liquid nitrogen canisters." Based on experience with organ transplants, biochemist Ken Storey argues that "even if you only wanted to preserve the brain, it has dozens of different areas which would need to be cryopreserved using different protocols".[39]

Revival

[edit]

Revival would require repairing damage from lack of oxygen, cryoprotectant toxicity, thermal stress (fracturing), and freezing in tissues that do not successfully vitrify, followed by reversing the cause of death. In many cases, extensive tissue regeneration would be necessary.[40] This revival technology remains speculative.[1]

[edit]

Historically, people had little control over how their bodies were treated after death, as religion held jurisdiction over the matter.[41] But secular courts began to exercise jurisdiction over corpses and use discretion in carrying out deceased people's wishes.[41] Most countries legally treat preserved bodies as deceased persons because of laws that forbid vitrifying someone who is medically alive.[42] In France, cryonics is not considered a legal mode of body disposal;[43] only burial, cremation, and formal body donation to science are allowed, though bodies may legally be shipped to other countries for cryonic freezing.[44] As of 2015, British Columbia prohibits the sale of arrangements for cryonic body preservation.[45] In Russia, cryonics falls outside both the medical industry and the funeral services industry, making it easier than in the U.S. to get hospitals and morgues to release cryonics candidates.[27]

In 2016, the English High Court ruled in favor of a mother's right to seek cryopreservation of her terminally ill 14-year-old daughter, as the girl wanted, contrary to the father's wishes. The decision was made on the basis that the case represented a conventional dispute over the disposal of the girl's body, although the judge urged ministers to seek "proper regulation" for the future of cryonic preservation after the hospital raised concerns about the competence and professionalism of the team that conducted the preservation procedures.[46] In Alcor Life Extension Foundation v. Richardson, the Iowa Court of Appeals ordered the disinterment of Richardson, who was buried against his wishes, for cryopreservation.[41][47]

A detailed legal examination by Jochen Taupitz concludes that cryonic storage is legal in Germany for an indefinite period.[48]

Ethics

[edit]

Writing in Bioethics in 2009, David Shaw examined cryonics. The arguments he cited 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.[49] He argues that someone who bets on cryonic preservation risks losing "a bit of money" but potentially gains a longer life and perhaps immortality. Shaun Pattinson responds that Shaw's calculation is incomplete because "being revived only equates to winning the wager if the revived life is worth living. A longer life of unremitting suffering, perhaps due to irreparable nerve damage or even the actions of an evil reviver, is unlikely to be considered preferable to non-revival".[50]

In 2016, Charles Tandy wrote in support of cryonics, arguing that honoring someone's last wishes is seen as a benevolent duty in American and many other cultures.[51]

History

[edit]
See also: Cryopreservation § History, and Embryo cryopreservation

Cryopreservation was applied to human cells beginning in 1954 with frozen sperm, which was thawed and used to inseminate three women.[52] The freezing of humans was first scientifically proposed by Michigan professor Robert Ettinger in The Prospect of Immortality (1962).[53] In 1966, the first human body was frozen—though it had been embalmed for two months—by being placed in liquid nitrogen and stored at just above freezing. The middle-aged woman from Los Angeles, whose name is unknown, was soon thawed and buried by relatives.[54]

The first body to be cryopreserved and then frozen in hope of future revival was that of James Bedford. Alcor's Mike Darwin says Bedford's body was cryopreserved around two hours after his death by cardiorespiratory arrest (secondary to metastasized kidney cancer) on January 12, 1967.[55] Bedford's corpse is the only one frozen before 1974 still preserved today.[54] In 1976, Ettinger founded the Cryonics Institute; his corpse was cryopreserved in 2011.[53] In 1981, Robert Nelson, "a former TV repairman with no scientific background" who led the Cryonics Society of California, was sued for allowing nine bodies to thaw and decompose in the 1970s; in his defense, he claimed that the Cryonics Society had run out of money.[54] This lowered the reputation of cryonics in the U.S.[27]

In 2018, a Y-Combinator startup called Nectome was recognized for developing a method of preserving brains with chemicals rather than by freezing. The method is fatal, performed as euthanasia under general anesthesia, but the hope is that future technology will allow the brain to be physically scanned into a computer simulation, neuron by neuron.[56]

Demographics

[edit]

According to The New York Times, cryonicists are predominantly non-religious white men, outnumbering women by about three to one.[57] According to The Guardian, as of 2008, while most cryonicists used to be young, male, and "geeky", recent demographics have shifted slightly toward whole families.[42]

In 2015, Du Hong, a 61-year-old female writer of children's literature, became the first known Chinese national to have her head cryopreserved.[58]

Reception

[edit]

Cryonics is generally regarded as a fringe pseudoscience.[3] Between 1982[59] and November 2018, the Society for Cryobiology rejected members who practiced cryonics,[60][61] and issued a public statement saying that cryonics "is an act of speculation or hope, not science", and as such outside the scope of the Society.[61]

Russian company KrioRus is the first non-U.S. vendor of cryonics services. Yevgeny Alexandrov, chair of the Russian Academy of Sciences commission against pseudoscience, said there was "no scientific basis" for cryonics, and that the company was based on "unfounded speculation".[62]

Scientists have expressed skepticism about cryonics in media sources,[27] and the Norwegian philosopher Ole Martin Moen has written that the topic receives a "minuscule" amount of attention in academia.[12]

While some neuroscientists contend that all the subtleties of a human mind are contained in its anatomical structure,[63] few will comment directly on cryonics due to its speculative nature. People who intend to be frozen are often "looked at as a bunch of kooks".[64] Cryobiologist Kenneth B. Storey said in 2004 that cryonics is impossible and will never be possible, as cryonics proponents are proposing to "overturn the laws of physics, chemistry, and molecular science".[9] Neurobiologist Michael Hendricks has said, "Reanimation or simulation is an abjectly false hope that is beyond the promise of technology and is certainly impossible with the frozen, dead tissue offered by the 'cryonics' industry".[27]

Anthropologist Simon Dein writes that cryonics is a typical pseudoscience because of its lack of falsifiability and testability. In his view, cryonics is not science, but religion: it places faith in nonexistent technology and promises to overcome death.[65]

William T. Jarvis has written, "Cryonics might be a suitable subject for scientific research, but marketing an unproven method to the public is quackery".[4][5]

According to cryonicist Aschwin de Wolf and others, cryonics can often produce intense hostility from spouses who are not cryonicists. James Hughes, the executive director of the pro-life-extension Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, has not personally signed up for cryonics, calling it a worthy experiment but saying, "I value my relationship with my wife."[57]

Cryobiologist Dayong Gao has said, "People can always have hope that things will change in the future, but there is no scientific foundation supporting cryonics at this time."[39] While it is universally agreed that personal identity is uninterrupted when brain activity temporarily ceases during incidents of accidental drowning (where people have been restored to normal functioning after being completely submerged in cold water for up to 66 minutes), one argument against cryonics is that a centuries-long absence from life might interrupt personal identity, such that the revived person would "not be themself".[12]

Maastricht University bioethicist David Shaw raises the argument that there would be no point in being revived in the far future if one's friends and families are dead, leaving them all alone, but he notes that family and friends can also be frozen, that there is "nothing to prevent the thawed-out freezee from making new friends", and that a lonely existence may be preferable to none at all.[49]

In fiction

[edit]
Main article: Suspended animation in fiction

Suspended animation is a popular subject in science fiction and fantasy settings. It is often the means by which a character is transported into the future. The characters Philip J. Fry in Futurama and Khan Noonien Singh in Star Trek exemplify this trope.

A survey in Germany found that about half of the respondents were familiar with cryonics, and about half of those familiar with it had learned of it from films or television.[66]

[edit]

The town of Nederland, Colorado, hosts an annual Frozen Dead Guy Days festival to commemorate a substandard attempt at cryopreservation.[67]

Notable people

[edit]
See also: List of people who arranged for cryonics

Corpses subjected to the cryonics process include those of baseball players Ted Williams and his son John Henry Williams (in 2002 and 2004, respectively),[68] engineer and doctor L. Stephen Coles (in 2014),[69] economist and entrepreneur Phil Salin, and software engineer Hal Finney (in 2014).[70]

People known to have arranged for cryonics upon death include PayPal founders Luke Nosek[71] and Peter Thiel,[72] Oxford transhumanists Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg, and transhumanist philosopher David Pearce.[73] Larry King once arranged for cryonics but, according to Inside Edition, changed his mind.[74][75]

Sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein wanted to have his head and penis frozen after death.[76][77]

The corpses of some are mistakenly believed to have undergone cryonics. The urban legend that Walt Disney's remains were cryopreserved is false; they were cremated and interred at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery.[78][a] Timothy Leary was a long-time cryonics advocate and signed up with a major cryonics provider, but changed his mind shortly before his death and was not cryopreserved.[80]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cryonics

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Cryonics is the speculative practice of cryopreserving human bodies, heads, or brains immediately after legal death by cooling them to liquid nitrogen temperatures (approximately −196 °C) using vitrification techniques to minimize ice crystal formation and tissue damage, with the goal of halting decomposition until hypothetical future technologies—such as advanced nanotechnology or molecular repair—could reverse death and restore biological function. The process typically begins with rapid postmortem stabilization, followed by perfusion with cryoprotectants to prevent fracturing, and immersion in dewars for indefinite storage, though it requires prompt intervention post-circulatory arrest to preserve neural structures presumed essential for identity. The concept emerged in the mid-20th century, catalyzed by Robert Ettinger's 1962 self-published book The Prospect of Immortality, which argued from first principles that technological progress could eventually conquer aging and death, positioning as an extension of rather than a denial of mortality. The first human occurred in 1967 with , a professor whose body was preserved by the now-defunct Cryonics Society of California using rudimentary dry ice and later liquid nitrogen methods; today, major providers include the (established 1972, based in ) and the (founded 1976 in ), which together maintain over 200 patients in biostasis, funded largely through policies and membership dues averaging $200,000 for whole-body preservation. While proponents highlight empirical advances in vitrifying rabbit kidneys and nematode brains without loss of viability, cryonics lacks experimental validation for revival, as no cryopreserved has been successfully rewarmed and restored to baseline function, leading mainstream cryobiologists to classify it as unproven and akin to due to irreversible cellular fracturing and from ischemia. Critics, including neuroscientists, contend that the procedure inflicts cumulative nanoscale damage beyond foreseeable repair, exploits grief with false hope, and diverts resources from proven interventions like , while institutional bias in academia—where associating with cryonics risks professional —stifles objective inquiry. Proponents respond that causal realism demands treating as a state of suspended potential rather than absolute finality, given historical underestimation of technological reversibility in fields like , though success probabilities remain epistemically low absent breakthroughs in scanning or simulation. Legal challenges persist, including disputes over contracts, , and definitions of , underscoring cryonics' fringe status amid ethical debates on and .

Scientific and Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Principles

Cryonics is the low-temperature of human remains—typically the whole body or just the head—undertaken immediately after , with the aim of maintaining biological structure in a stable state until future medical technologies can repair damage from the dying , cryopreservation, and aging, thereby enabling revival and restoration to health. This approach treats not as an absolute endpoint but as the beginning of a degradative that can be halted if intervened upon swiftly, preserving the information content of the that constitutes . At its foundation, cryonics operates on the principle that death, from an information-theoretic perspective, occurs only when the unique pattern of neural connections and molecular states encoding memory and personality becomes irretrievably lost—a threshold not necessarily crossed at the moment of cardiac arrest or brain activity cessation. Preservation seeks to arrest further information loss by rapidly cooling the body to cryogenic temperatures (around -196°C in liquid nitrogen), where biochemical reactions and cellular degradation effectively cease, allowing theoretical reversibility under advanced repair scenarios. This draws from established cryobiology, where cooling exponentially slows metabolic processes and enzymatic activity, as evidenced by the successful cryopreservation and viability recovery of human embryos and small tissues. Key to the procedure is , the use of high-concentration cryoprotectants to induce a glass-like, non-crystalline solid state during freezing, which mitigates fracturing and ice-induced cellular damage that would otherwise render tissues unrecoverable. The core rationale posits that while current technology cannot reverse cryopreserved states, the laws of physics and chemistry permit nanoscale reconstruction—potentially via —to scan, repair, and reanimate preserved structures, extrapolating from reversible cryopreservation successes in simpler biological systems. Proponents emphasize that failure to attempt preservation guarantees permanent loss, whereas success aligns with empirical trends in extending viable cryopreservation from cells to potentially complex organs.

Biological and Thermodynamic Rationale

Cryonics posits that biological death is a process rather than an instantaneous event, allowing for potential preservation of the brain's structural information—such as synaptic connections and molecular patterns encoding memory and identity—if intervened upon promptly after clinical death. This rationale draws from neuroscience evidence that personal identity resides in the physical connectome and fine-scale neural architecture, which could theoretically be mapped and restored by advanced future technologies. Pre-cryopreservation ischemic damage from oxygen deprivation triggers autolysis and proteolysis, but rapid stabilization via perfusion with fixatives and cryoprotectants aims to arrest these degradative cascades, maintaining tissue integrity for centuries. Empirical support includes successful cryopreservation of human embryos and small organs, demonstrating that cellular viability can be paused at cryogenic temperatures without irreversible loss of biological potential. Biologically, replaces cellular water with high-concentration cryoprotectants to form a glass-like solid, preventing formation that would rupture membranes and disrupt . This process minimizes osmotic stress and damage during cooling, with studies showing preserved synaptic integrity in vitrified rabbit kidneys and neural tissue models. However, challenges persist, including cryoprotectant toxicity causing protein denaturation and incomplete leading to regional , though proponents argue these are surmountable with molecular repair in the future. Thermodynamically, cryopreservation exploits the exponential slowdown of and rates at temperatures below -130°C, where the occurs, effectively stabilizing atomic configurations against entropy-driven decay. avoids thermodynamic disequilibrium from by kinetic inhibition during rapid cooling, forming a metastable with exceeding 10^12 Pa·s, akin to a supercooled liquid trapped in a non-crystalline state. Isochoric conditions—maintaining constant volume—further reduce thermal contraction stresses that could induce fracturing, as differential expansion coefficients between tissue and vitrifiables lead to shear forces during phase changes. At temperatures (-196°C), reaction rates drop by factors of 10^9 or more per decrease, enabling preservation of information-bearing structures for indefinite periods, provided initial damage is not information-theoretically destructive. This aligns with principles of causal realism, where structural fidelity at the nanoscale underpins potential reversibility, though revival remains contingent on hypothetical to reverse accumulated perturbations.

Comparison to Established Cryopreservation

Established cryopreservation techniques preserve viable biological materials, such as spermatozoa, oocytes, embryos, and small tissue samples, at cryogenic temperatures for later use, with proven viability upon thawing in clinical settings like assisted reproduction. These methods employ either slow freezing with cryoprotectants to minimize formation or , which rapidly cools samples into a glass-like state without ice, achieving high survival rates for microscopic samples—often exceeding 90% for human embryos. Success relies on uniform cryoprotectant penetration and minimal structural complexity, as demonstrated in peer-reviewed protocols since the for gametes and the for expanded applications like ovarian tissue. Cryonics extends principles to human whole bodies or neuropreserved heads post-legal death, aiming to halt biological decay for potential molecular repair and revival using anticipated future technologies, rather than immediate viability. Both utilize agents like or mixtures to prevent intracellular ice, but cryonics procedures involve postmortem to distribute cryoprotectants throughout large vascular networks, introducing challenges absent in small-scale preservation. A primary distinction lies in precondition and damage profile: established cryopreservation targets living, ischemic-free tissues, preserving baseline functionality, whereas cryonics commences after , incurring variable ischemic injury from agonal processes or delays—estimated at 10-60 minutes in optimal cases—which fractures cells and propagates decay before cooling stabilizes the subject. Scaling to organs or bodies exacerbates issues like incomplete cryoprotectant , from high concentrations (often 40-60% solutions), and thermal fracturing during cooling to -130°C or below, none of which have been reversed empirically for complex mammalian organs as of 2022. While cryopreservation of composite tissues remains experimental beyond small units, with no routine whole-organ transplants from cryogenic storage, cryonics lacks direct empirical validation of structural preservation sufficient for information-theoretic revival, relying instead on extrapolations from nanoscale repair hypotheses untested in large systems. Critics, including biophysicists, argue that cumulative insults—ischemia, fixation artifacts, and -induced molecular disruptions—render cryonics preservation qualitatively inferior to established methods, though proponents cite indirect evidence from rabbit kidney experiments in the showing partial reversibility. No human revivals from cryonics have occurred, contrasting with thousands of successful thaws in reproductive annually.

Cryopreservation Procedures and Technology

Individuals interested in cryonics typically begin preparations by joining a provider such as or the , involving completion of membership applications, selection of cryopreservation options (neuro or whole-body), and arrangement of funding through mechanisms like policies or trusts to cover costs ranging from $28,000 for neurosuspension at CI to $220,000 for whole-body at Alcor. Legal documents, including contracts like the Cryonic Suspension Agreement and Uniform Donor Forms, are executed to authorize procedures, designate consents, and establish powers of attorney to prevent interference from family or authorities; members also provide medical histories, identification, and emergency instruction sheets to healthcare providers to facilitate coordination. As approaches, members notify the organization to deploy standby teams, such as Alcor's Deployment and Recovery Team (DART) comprising trained paramedics and medical professionals, who establish presence at the bedside or nearby with equipment for immediate stabilization, including ice baths, medications, and circulatory support tools; relocation near the facility, such as Alcor's in , or CI's in , is recommended to minimize response times. These preparations aim to reduce ischemic damage by enabling intervention within minutes of death, though comprehensive standby services incur additional fees and require advance planning. Cryonics protocols mandate initiation only after legal death is pronounced by an independent physician, typically based on irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or criteria, to comply with laws prohibiting interference with living persons; for instance, Alcor requires confirmation of before proceeding, explicitly rejecting any pre-mortem cryopreservation. Post-pronouncement, teams immediately stabilize the body via cooling in ice slurries, administration of anticoagulants like (30,000-40,000 units depending on weight), and controlled chest compressions to perfuse protective agents without restoring heartbeat, followed by rapid transport to the facility under or specialized vehicles to limit warm ischemia to under 15-30 minutes ideally. Variations exist by provider, with CI emphasizing coordination with local funeral directors for out-of-state cases requiring death certificates and transport permits before acceptance.

Perfusion, Vitrification, and Cooling Processes

Perfusion in cryonics begins immediately after and initial stabilization, involving the surgical induction of if not already present, followed by the replacement of the patient's with a chilled organ preservation solution to minimize ischemic damage. This solution, typically containing anticoagulants and tissue stabilizers, is circulated through the vascular system using equipment to restore circulation and cool the body core to approximately 0–5°C within minutes. The process aims to reduce metabolic activity and cellular degradation from oxygen deprivation, with field teams ideally arriving within minutes to deploy ice baths and external cooling for rapid surface temperature reduction to 10°C or below prior to full . Cryoprotectant perfusion follows stabilization, where and bodily fluids are gradually flushed out and substituted with a high-concentration mixture of penetrating cryoprotectants, such as a proprietary formula including (DMSO), , and polyethylene glycol-based agents like M22, which permeate cell membranes to replace water and prevent intracellular formation during subsequent cooling. This step occurs at near-freezing temperatures (around 0°C) over 2–4 hours, achieving replacement of over 60% of the body's water content in whole-body cases, with the solution delivered via carotid and cannulation to ensure even distribution, particularly to the . , the goal of this perfusion, transforms aqueous tissues into a stable, amorphous glass-like solid without crystalline ice, relying on the cryoprotectants' ability to elevate the freezing point and inhibit ; however, from high concentrations (often 7–9 M) necessitates controlled gradients to limit osmotic stress and fracturing. implemented whole-body vitrification protocols in 2005, building on earlier neuro-only applications, while the primarily employs slower freezing with cryoprotectants for whole bodies, resulting in some ice formation. Cooling to cryogenic storage temperatures proceeds in phases post-vitrification: initial immersion or circulation in a -80°C or alcohol bath reduces to about -79°C over 24–48 hours to equilibrate and minimize thermal gradients, followed by computer-controlled immersion in liquid vapor or gas at -125°C to -196°C, using fans and sensors to achieve rates of 10–20°C per hour and prevent cracking from differential expansion. The final of -196°C, the of liquid at , halts all and biochemical reactions, with patients transferred to filled with liquid for indefinite storage under insulation to maintain stability without power dependency. This multi-stage cooling mitigates risks like vitrification or mechanical stress, though fracturing remains a documented issue in larger tissue volumes due to mismatches.

Long-Term Storage and Maintenance

Cryopreserved patients are transferred to long-term storage in insulated cryogenic vessels—dewars at Alcor or cryostats at the —immersed in at -196°C, preserving the vitrified, ice-free state of tissues achieved during and cooling. These vessels, designed like oversized vacuum-insulated flasks, minimize and evaporation, with capacities to hold multiple patients (up to 6-8 in standard units). The immersion halts biochemical reactions and , aiming to maintain structural integrity for potential future revival, though no empirical demonstration of indefinite preservation exists beyond short-term cryopreservation analogs. Maintenance protocols emphasize stability through periodic liquid nitrogen replenishment to counter boil-off rates of approximately 1-2% per day in smaller , though larger units extend intervals to weeks or months. Organizations employ redundant monitoring systems, including level sensors for , probes within the vapor phase (-140°C to -196°C gradient), and integrity checks to detect insulation failures. Alarms trigger immediate staff response or remote notifications, with facilities like Alcor's in and the Cryonics Institute's in featuring backup power and seismic safeguards; documentation includes regular audits of patient cases to ensure compliance with preservation standards. Funding for perpetual storage is secured via upfront allocations from membership fees—$200,000 for whole-body or $80,000 for neuro at Alcor, with portions directed to segregated trusts like the Patient Care Trust, managed by an independent board for investment to yield ongoing returns covering annual costs estimated under $1,000 per patient. The Cryonics Institute similarly relies on life insurance payouts or trusts for its $28,000 whole-body fee, emphasizing low-overhead operations. However, sustaining these over centuries faces risks from inflation (projected to raise costs by 3% annually) and investment volatility, potentially requiring periodic trust adjustments absent robust endowment growth. No organization guarantees eternal viability, as historical precedents in perpetual care trusts show occasional failures due to economic shifts.

Organizations and Practical Implementation

Major Cryonics Providers and Their Operations

The primary cryonics providers are the and the , which together account for the majority of cryopreserved individuals worldwide, with approximately 500-650 patients across all organizations as of mid-2025. , based in , operates as a nonprofit offering both neurosuspension (head-only) and whole-body using techniques to minimize formation, followed by immersion in dewars for long-term storage. It maintains Deployment and Recovery Teams (D.A.R.T.) comprising medical professionals for standby stabilization immediately post-legal , and funds patient care through a dedicated trust separate from operational expenses. As of recent statistics, Alcor has 248 patients in storage and 1,442 members signed for cryopreservation arrangements. The (CI), located in Clinton Township, Michigan, functions as a member-owned nonprofit emphasizing affordable full-body without a neurosuspension option, storing patients in dewars at its facility. Operations include coordination with external standby services like , Inc., for transport and initial stabilization, with a focus on whole-body preservation using cryoprotectants and cooling protocols optimized for cost efficiency. CI reports over 250 patients cryopreserved, with 264 human patients and 2,255 members as of late 2024, reflecting steady growth into 2025. Emerging providers include Tomorrow Bio, a Berlin-based organization founded in 2020 that conducts () primarily in but with expanding U.S. services, having preserved 20 humans and 10 pets by mid-2025 while maintaining nearly 700 signed-up members. Its operations involve retrofitted storage facilities and a focus on accessibility, though on a smaller scale than Alcor or CI. KrioRus, Russia's primary provider since 2005, has cryopreserved 104 individuals and operates its own storage site, serving clients mainly from but facing internal disputes that have occasionally disrupted operations.
ProviderLocationPatients (approx., 2025)Key ServicesStorage Method
AlcorScottsdale, AZ248Neuro/whole-body vitrification, D.A.R.T. standbyLiquid nitrogen dewars
Cryonics InstituteClinton Twp., MI264Full-body , pet/DNA storageLiquid nitrogen dewars
Tomorrow Bio, 20Biostasis, U.S. expansionRetrofitted dewars
KrioRus region104Full-body/neuro, regional focusOn-site cryogenic

Notable Cases and Procedural Outcomes

One of the earliest documented cryonics cases was that of James H. Bedford, a cryopreserved on January 12, 1967, by the now-defunct Cryonics Society of California using primitive freezing techniques without cryoprotectants, resulting in significant formation and tissue damage. Bedford's body was later transferred to in 1975 and remains in storage, though early procedures lacked , leading to acknowledged structural degradation upon potential future analysis. Baseball Hall of Famer was neuropreserved (head only) by Alcor on July 5, 2002, following legal death from , with perfusion using cryoprotectants to minimize ice formation; the procedure was completed within hours, but controversies arose over family disputes and unsubstantiated claims of mishandling, such as alleged post-mortem abuse, which Alcor denied. Similarly, transhumanist (Fereidoun M. Esfandiary) was cryopreserved by Alcor in July 2000 after succumbing to , with prompt standby and yielding what Alcor described as a relatively intact neural structure despite ischemic delays. The (CI) handled the case of a 14-year-old British girl, JS, who died of cancer on , 2016, after a ruling allowed her cryopreservation against her mother's initial opposition; transported to , her body underwent whole-body and cooling with reported minimal delays, though international introduced variables like extended warm ischemia. In contrast, CI's 2024 case of a 71-year-old British man involved emergency arrangements post-sudden death, achieving field cooling and within hours, but uncontrollable circumstances limited optimal . Procedural challenges have surfaced in cases like Alcor's A-1097 in 1987 (Dora Kent), where post-perfusion analysis revealed possible effects and thawing artifacts during a Riverside County investigation, prompting lawsuits that Alcor won, including a $90,000 settlement for wrongful seizure, but highlighting risks of legal interference disrupting cooling. Early organizational failures, such as the 1970s thawing of patients from defunct providers due to funding shortfalls, underscore systemic vulnerabilities, with over a dozen pre-1973 cases lost entirely. More recent disputes, like the 2019 Pilgeram lawsuit against Alcor alleging unauthorized neuropreservation instead of whole-body, settled out of court, reflect ongoing tensions over contractual interpretations and procedural fidelity. No cases have achieved revival, with outcomes measured solely by preservation metrics like ice minimization and structural integrity, which have improved via since the 2000s but remain unproven for reversibility.

Costs, Funding Models, and Accessibility

Cryonics preservation costs vary significantly by provider, preservation type (whole-body or neuropreservation), and included services such as standby, transport, and long-term storage. As of 2025, whole-body cryopreservation typically ranges from $28,000 to $220,000, while neuropreservation is lower, often around $80,000 at premium providers. These figures exclude additional expenses like membership fees, legal preparations, or optional standby services, which can add thousands more. Costs reflect the capital-intensive nature of , , and indefinite storage, with providers allocating portions for perpetual maintenance funds. Major U.S.-based providers illustrate this range. The charges $220,000 for whole-body preservation and $80,000 for neuropreservation, plus an application fee of $300 and annual dues calculated as the member's age multiplied by $15 (e.g., $750 for a 50-year-old in 2025). The offers whole-body suspension for a one-time fee of $28,000, with no subsequent storage charges, alongside annual membership dues of $120 or a lifetime option for $1,250. In , Tomorrow Bio's all-inclusive whole-body plan costs €200,000 (approximately $215,000 USD as of late 2025 exchange rates), with brain-only options available at lower rates. These prices have seen modest increases over time to account for inflation and technological upgrades, such as enhanced protocols.
ProviderWhole-Body CostNeuropreservation CostAdditional Notes
$220,000$80,000Annual dues: age × $15; application fee $300
$28,000 (one-time)Not offered separatelyLifetime membership $1,250; excludes transport
Tomorrow Bio€200,000Lower (brain-only available)Includes standby; Europe-focused
Funding models primarily rely on life insurance policies naming the cryonics provider as irrevocable , a strategy used by over 90% of members across organizations. Term or whole life policies are tailored to cover preservation fees upon , with premiums affordable for healthy individuals—often €20–50 monthly for young adults funding €200,000 coverage. Providers like Alcor and the verify policy adequacy and assist in arrangements to mitigate insurer denials, though rare disputes have arisen over cryopreservation's classification as non-burial. Alternative models include upfront cash payments, bank trusts, or personal revival trusts for post-revival assets, but these demand significant liquidity and expose funds to market risks without insurance's leverage. hedging via increasing policy face values is recommended, as storage costs could rise over decades. Accessibility remains constrained despite insurance democratizing upfront barriers; cryonics is viable for middle-income individuals in developed nations who plan early, but excludes those in low-income regions or without access to reliable insurers. Geographic limitations favor U.S. and European residents due to provider locations and legal frameworks, with international transport adding $10,000–$50,000. Awareness gaps and cultural further limit uptake, though providers report thousands of members globally, predominantly affluent professionals. Critics argue true affordability hinges on revival feasibility, as non-revived cases represent sunk costs without empirical , yet proponents emphasize insurance's low ongoing burden enables broad participation absent acute financial distress.

Historical Development

Early Concepts and Pioneering Efforts (Pre-1970s)

The foundations of cryonics drew from mid-20th-century advances in , particularly the discovery of cryoprotective agents that enabled the freezing and revival of biological materials. In 1949, British scientists Audrey U. Smith, Alan P. Polge, and Christopher Polge demonstrated that could protect fowl spermatozoa from lethal formation during freezing to -79°C, allowing recovery of motility upon thawing; this marked the first successful of reproductive cells with viability post-thaw. By the early 1950s, similar techniques extended to human red blood cells, with Smith reporting in 1950 the preservation of viable erythrocytes frozen in at -79°C and thawed without . Experiments on small animals followed, including partial freezing of golden hamsters to below 0°C in the 1950s, where up to 60% of brain fluids could solidify yet permit revival with minimal damage, as shown by James Lovelock's work on hypothermic tolerance. These empirical findings established that controlled cooling could mitigate some freezing injuries in simple systems, though scaling to complex mammalian organs or whole bodies remained unproven and theoretically challenging due to escalating ice damage in larger tissues. The conceptual leap to human cryopreservation for potential revival originated with Robert C. W. Ettinger, a physics professor who in 1962 privately circulated and self-published The Prospect of Immortality, arguing that medical progress would eventually conquer aging and disease, rendering death reversible for those preserved intact at low temperatures. Ettinger posited as a low-cost hedge against mortality, citing cryobiological precedents like glycerol's antifreeze properties—first noted by Jean Rostand in 1946 for animal cells—and extrapolating that future or cellular repair could address thawing damages. The book, commercially released by Doubleday in 1964, catalyzed the cryonics movement by framing freezing not as mere embalming but as a probabilistic extension of life, dependent on causal chains of technological advancement rather than unsubstantiated optimism. Ettinger's first-principles reasoning emphasized empirical trends in medicine, such as organ transplants and antibiotics, to justify the approach despite contemporary limitations in and . Pioneering organizational efforts emerged shortly after, with Ettinger co-founding the Cryonics Society of Michigan in 1966 to coordinate legal and technical preparations for post-mortem preservation. This group facilitated the field's first documented human cryopreservation attempt in April 1966, involving rudimentary cooling under the explicit intent of future reanimation, though details remain sparse and the case ultimately failed due to inadequate stabilization. A landmark success in endurance occurred on January 12, 1967, when James H. Bedford, a 73-year-old psychology professor terminally ill with lung cancer, was cryopreserved through the Life Extension Society in California; his body underwent heparin perfusion to prevent clotting, followed by packing in dry ice (-79°C) and transfer to liquid nitrogen (-196°C) storage, making him the first individual to achieve long-term cryonic suspension without decomposition. Bedford's case, funded personally and executed with basic cryoprotectants, highlighted early logistical hurdles like ischemia delays and ice formation but set a procedural template, with his remains transferred multiple times and still viable as of 2022 per visual inspections showing minimal degradation beyond expected freeze damage. These pre-1970s initiatives, while innovative, relied on untested extrapolations from cellular successes to whole-body revival, underscoring the speculative nature amid scientific consensus on irreversible cryopreservation injuries in neural tissue.

Formation of Organizations and Key Milestones (1970s-2000s)

In 1972, Fred and Linda Chamberlain incorporated the in as a nonprofit entity focused on cryonics research, distinguishing itself through emphasis on technological development rather than mere suspension services. In 1976, Alcor conducted its first human neuropreservation on Chamberlain's father, marking an early procedural milestone amid limited resources and rudimentary techniques. That same year, established the (CI) in as a nonprofit provider of cryostasis, including , cooling to temperatures, and long-term storage, prioritizing affordability and operational stability for broader accessibility. In 1977, Alcor merged with the Institute for Advanced Biological Studies, integrating advanced research on biological suspension and launching Cryonics magazine to disseminate technical findings. By 1978, Jerry Leaf founded Cryovita Laboratories in association with Alcor, advancing surgical and hypothermic protocols derived from medical training. During the 1980s, Alcor expanded facilities with a 1986 building in , funded by private investment, enabling the first companion animal cryopreservation and improved case handling. In 1987, Alcor assumed responsibility for , the first documented cryonics patient from 1967, transferring him to its care after prior storage instability. Organizations like Alcor progressively adapted clinical methods to deliver high cryoprotectant concentrations, mitigating cellular damage though still facing ischemic and fracturing limitations. The 1990s saw Alcor relocate to , in 1994 for enhanced regulatory environment and infrastructure scalability. In 1997, Alcor created a dedicated Patient Care Trust to isolate long-term storage funding from operational risks, ensuring financial segregation. By the early , Alcor achieved initial brain using the B2C formula in 2001, transitioning from slow-freezing to glass-like solidification with cryoprotectants to preserve neural structure. CI followed with experimental via CI-VM-1 in 2004, applying it first to animal models before human cases in 2005, reflecting convergent efforts to address freeze-thaw artifacts empirically observed in prior methods.

Recent Advances and Expansion (2010s-2025)

In the 2010s, cryonics organizations refined protocols to minimize formation and fracturing during , building on earlier adoption of cryoprotectants like M22 solutions that enabled better tissue penetration without full-body uniformity. invested in in-house development of patented preservation systems and equipment, including improved techniques to reduce ischemic damage post-legal death. By 2023, related research demonstrated nanowarming of vitrified rabbit kidneys stored for up to 100 days, achieving successful rewarming and transplantation viability, highlighting potential scalability for larger tissues though not yet applied to human whole-body cases. Organizational expansion accelerated in the late 2010s and 2020s, with new providers emerging beyond U.S.-based Alcor and . Tomorrow Bio established Europe's first dedicated cryonics facility in by 2025, offering full-body preservation for approximately €200,000 and emphasizing modular storage scalability. Southern Cryonics launched operations in in the early 2020s, conducting the region's first human in 2024 under updated legal protocols allowing post-mortem procedures. In , Yinfeng Biological Group advanced infrastructure, contributing to global patient totals. By mid-2025, approximately 500-650 individuals had undergone worldwide, with Alcor reporting 248 patients in long-term storage and enabling field cryoprotection services via partnerships like to enhance remote response capabilities. Funding inflows surpassed $65 million in 2025 for core cryonics ventures, supporting facility upgrades and research into toxicity reduction in cryoprotectants. These developments reflect incremental procedural optimizations rather than breakthroughs in revival feasibility, amid ongoing scientific over long-term structural .

Challenges to Feasibility

Immediate Preservation Damages and Limitations

Upon pronouncement of , tissues undergo ischemia-reperfusion injury, where oxygen deprivation leads to rapid cellular breakdown, particularly in the brain, with neuronal death commencing within minutes due to ATP depletion and . This ischemic damage accumulates before stabilization efforts, compromising synaptic integrity and preservation essential for identity recovery. Cryopreservation protocols attempt to mitigate further harm via , replacing bodily fluids with cryoprotectants to form a glass-like state and prevent ice crystal formation, which would otherwise puncture cell membranes and disrupt tissue architecture. However, incomplete vitrification in large organs like the brain results in extracellular ice buildup, causing mechanical fracturing and vascular occlusion. Intracellular ice, if present, exacerbates dehydration and osmotic imbalance during thawing simulations. Cryoprotectants such as (DMSO) and introduce toxicity through chemical denaturation of proteins and disruption of lipid bilayers, with exposure times correlating directly to viability loss in mammalian cells. Perfusion of these agents, necessary for whole-body treatment, induces osmotic stress and uneven distribution, leading to edema in under-perfused regions and heightened damage in sensitive neural tissues. Studies on chondrocytes and oocytes indicate that even optimized mixtures reduce post-thaw recovery to below 50% for complex structures. Key limitations include the scale-dependent efficacy of preservation: while rabbit kidneys have achieved functional revival after as of 2005, human-scale brains exceed current and cooling rates, resulting in incomplete cryoprotectant penetration and persistent fracturing during -130°C storage transitions. Thermal gradients during cooldown amplify microcracks, with finite element models predicting up to 10% volume strain in . These cumulative insults—ischemic, cryogenic, and toxic—necessitate hypothetical nanoscale repair beyond present , rendering immediate preservation a stabilization gamble rather than reversible .

Revival Requirements and Technological Hurdles

Revival of cryopreserved humans would necessitate repairing multifaceted cellular and molecular damages incurred during , including ischemic injury from oxygen deprivation, which triggers widespread and membrane degradation within minutes. Additionally, the underlying terminal —such as cancer or neurodegeneration—must be eradicated, alongside reversal of age-related deterioration across all tissues, requiring technologies capable of comprehensive akin to hypothetical molecular reconstruction. Proponents posit that these repairs could be achieved through advanced interventions like nanoscale to excise and replace damaged structures, but no such capabilities exist as of 2025. Preservation processes introduce further irreversible hurdles, primarily from , where high concentrations of cryoprotective agents (CPAs) like (DMSO) or —often exceeding 50% by volume—are perfused to avert formation. These agents, while enabling glass-like solidification, induce toxicity through protein denaturation, osmotic dehydration, and chemical imbalances, compromising cellular viability even before cooling. Cooling to temperatures (-196°C) exacerbates issues via thermal fracturing, where differential contraction ruptures tissues and vasculature, as observed in large organs despite CPA use. Extracellular ice, if not fully prevented, punctures intercellular junctions, while any intracellular disrupts organelles lethally. Rewarming poses equivalent barriers, demanding uniform heat distribution to avoid —where vitrified solutions recrystallize into damaging ice—or from uneven thawing. Experimental methods like nanowarming via nanoparticles or inductive heating have demonstrated feasibility in small samples, such as rabbit kidneys vitrified at -130°C, but scaling to human-scale volumes remains unachieved, with viability post-rewarming limited to embryonic cells or simple tissues rather than intact brains or organs. Cryobiologists note that current protocols succeed for gametes and oocytes but fail for complex mammalian structures due to these biophysical incompatibilities, underscoring gaps in perfusion uniformity and CPA optimization. Feasibility debates hinge on whether preservation inflicts information-theoretic loss in neural connectomes essential for identity, with skeptics arguing that cumulative damages—hypoxia, fixation artifacts, and fracturing—exceed repair thresholds under known , rendering revival improbable without violating causal chains of biological function. While indirect evidence from reversible of nematode brains or rabbit renal units supports partial structural retention, no empirical precedent exists for mammalian whole-body revival, and mainstream views human-scale application as constrained by entropy-driven degradation. Future prospects rely on unproven paradigms like integration or AI-guided , yet projections for viable human revival, if attainable, span 75-150 years amid exponential biotech progress, though systemic research underfunding tempers optimism.

Empirical Evidence Gaps and Scientific Skepticism

The empirical foundation of cryonics remains severely limited by the complete absence of successful revivals from cryopreservation in humans or complex animals. As of 2025, no human has been revived after undergoing cryonic suspension, with over 500 individuals preserved by organizations like Alcor and the Cryonics Institute since the 1960s, yet none demonstrating post-thaw viability. Similarly, no mammal has been cryopreserved to cryogenic temperatures following clinical death and ischemia, then revived with preserved cognitive function, despite claims of progress in simpler organisms like nematodes or rabbit kidneys. This gap persists because cryonics procedures are applied only post-mortem under legal and ethical constraints, precluding controlled experimental validation in large animals, and historical animal tests have failed to achieve whole-body recovery beyond hypothermic states far short of vitrification. Scientific skepticism toward cryonics stems from this evidentiary void, compounded by the unproven scalability of preservation techniques. Cryobiologists widely view long-term human as implausible without breakthroughs in reversing ischemic damage and molecular repair, noting that current methods, while reducing ice formation, still induce toxicity and structural disruptions insufficiently characterized for revival prospects. Experts such as those cited in European research forums assert there is no objective data confirming that cryopreserved human tissues retain cellular functionality post-rewarming, rendering revival speculative rather than empirically grounded. Proponents counter with theoretical models of repair, but these lack experimental corroboration, and peer-reviewed analyses highlight biophysical limits on cryopreserving large biological structures without irreversible degradation. Critics, including figures in mainstream , classify cryonics as pseudoscientific due to its reliance on untested assumptions about future technologies bridging current gaps, without falsifiable predictions or intermediate milestones achieved. For instance, predictions from the 1970s onward of near-term animal revivals have not materialized, eroding confidence in extrapolations to humans, and institutional reviews emphasize that cryonics diverges from established science, which succeeds only in small tissues or gametes, not intact brains. This is reinforced by the field's isolation from funded academic research, where empirical priorities favor incremental advances over speculative preservation, highlighting a disconnect between cryonics advocacy and rigorous scientific methodology. Cryonics procedures are conducted only after a declaration of , positioning preserved individuals as deceased under prevailing laws in most jurisdictions, thereby circumventing regulations on medical interventions for the living. In the United States, no federal statute specifically governs cryonics, leaving it to state laws on body disposition, contracts, and the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), which in many states permits individuals to designate cryonics organizations as recipients of their remains akin to . Facilities such as the in benefit from state legislation, including Arizona Revised Statutes § 32-1453, which explicitly authorizes cryogenic suspension as a valid postmortem option, shielding providers from certain liability. However, in states without such protections, conflicts arise with medical examiners or coroners who may mandate autopsies, potentially delaying or preventing preservation, as seen in historical interventions by authorities in and . Prominent court cases illustrate enforcement challenges. In Donaldson v. Van de Kamp (1992), a rejected Thomas Donaldson's for cryogenic suspension, ruling it tantamount to and lacking constitutional basis under existing right-to-die precedents, though post-death preservation remained permissible. The case underscored that cryonics contracts bind only after death and cannot override statutes or compel state assistance in euthanasia-like acts. Internationally, the 2016 ruling in the matter of JS (a pseudonym for a 14-year-old terminally ill girl) granted her mother's request to cryopreserve the body against the estranged father's opposition, prioritizing the deceased's expressed wishes documented in writing as competent testamentary intent under on posthumous interests. A 2019 dispute involving Alcor and the estate of a cryopreserved highlighted contract enforcement issues, where a son contested unpaid fees for his father's neurosuspension, leading to litigation over property rights in remains and organizational liens, ultimately resolved through settlement without broader precedent on revival claims. Regulatory oversight remains minimal, as the U.S. (FDA) does not classify cryonics as a subject to its authority, given the absence of living patients and reliance on non-FDA-approved cryoprotectants applied postmortem. Cryonics providers self-regulate under general and safety codes for storage facilities, but international transport poses hurdles, with and biohazard laws varying; for instance, cryopreserved remains have been shipped to facilities abroad under declarations as human tissue, though border delays have occurred due to unclear status as "bodies" versus "specimens." Emerging concerns include potential future liabilities for in preservation quality or disputes over estates treating cryopreserved bodies as inheritable property, prompting advocacy for uniform laws to affirm contractual while addressing exploitation risks in vulnerable cases.

Ethical Defenses: Individual Autonomy and Rational Risk

Proponents of cryonics maintain that individual autonomy entails the right to direct the disposition of one's body after , including as a precautionary measure against irreversible cessation of vital functions. This perspective aligns with established bioethical principles of , where competent adults may execute advance directives for post-mortem handling, analogous to or anatomical gifts, without imposing harm on others. Denying such arrangements, advocates argue, infringes on personal sovereignty over one's physical remains, particularly when the procedure follows and legal declaration of death. Ethicists defending cryonics on autonomy grounds emphasize that legal death does not negate prior autonomous choices regarding potential future recovery, provided no overriding societal interests are violated. For instance, in jurisdictions permitting cryopreservation contracts, such as those upheld in U.S. states recognizing durable powers of attorney for healthcare, individuals contract with organizations like the to ensure prompt upon , typically within minutes to minimize ischemic damage. This framework respects the principal of non-interference with personal decisions absent evidence of incompetence or coercion, contrasting with critiques that prioritize familial or communal consensus over individual volition. From a rational risk perspective, cryonics is framed as a high-upside wager: the of revival—calculated as the product of success probability and the of extended life—outweighs finite costs, even under conservative estimates of technological feasibility. Philosophers such as those invoking the "cryonics wager" posit that probabilities as low as 1% or less justify the choice, given the asymmetric payoff of potential indefinite lifespan versus certain decomposition. This calculus draws on , where inaction guarantees zero future post-death, while hedges against underestimated revival prospects from advances in or , rendering it a prudent extension of akin to insurance against existential finality. Critics of probabilistic defenses often undervalue this reasoning by assuming near-zero success odds without empirical disproof, yet proponents counter that historical underestimation of medical progress—such as the eradication of by 1980 or gene editing's viability by 2012—supports Bayesian updating toward non-negligible revival chances. Rational endorsement thus hinges on empirical humility: absent definitive barriers to information-theoretic recovery of neural structure, the default stance favors preservation over discard, aligning with utilitarian maximization of potential human flourishing.

Criticisms: Resource Misallocation and False Hope Narratives

Critics contend that cryonics perpetuates false hope by promising revival from without of feasibility, particularly for human-scale brains where freezing causes irreversible damage to cellular structures and neural connections. Nobel laureate has described such prospects as implausible, noting the absence of technology to preserve or reconstruct the biochemical complexity of post-mortem brains, rendering reanimation a non-starter under current scientific understanding. Neuroscientist Michael Hendricks similarly labeled cryonics an "abjectly false hope," arguing that even advanced fails to capture dynamic synaptic and molecular data essential for mind reconstruction, especially from vitrified, dead tissue. This narrative is said to exploit vulnerable terminally ill individuals, who may forgo quality or acceptance of in favor of unproven procedures marketed as life-extending. Bioethicists and clinicians have raised concerns that providers capitalize on fear of mortality, offering no mammalian precedents for successful rewarming and reanimation, yet presenting as a rational extension of . In cases like the 2016 cryopreservation of a 14-year-old British girl, relatives and ethicists criticized the process as preying on desperation, with fathers of patients decrying it as a sale of unattainable promises to those frightened of dying. On resource misallocation, detractors argue that cryonics diverts substantial funds from more immediate biomedical research or societal needs, with procedures costing up to $200,000 for whole-body preservation at organizations like Alcor as of 2025. These expenditures, often funded via depleting family inheritances, are viewed as opportunity costs that could support proven interventions like cancer treatments or alleviation, rather than speculative storage with indefinite maintenance risks. Early critic Robert Prehoda contended in the that such practices siphon resources from essential research needed for mammal revival proofs, potentially stalling broader progress. Kenneth Hayworth has echoed this, suggesting cryonics' emphasis on case preservation discourages mainstream investment in foundational technologies, framing it as a distraction in an era of finite research budgets. In an overpopulated world with competing demands on resources, some ethicists deem cryonics inherently selfish, prioritizing individual posthumous interests over benefits to living populations or natural cycles of death and renewal. Facilities' long-term viability adds further skepticism, as societal disruptions could render investments futile, amplifying the misallocation critique. Proponents counter with appeals to potential future yields, but critics maintain the lack of verifiable pathways justifies redirecting efforts toward empirically grounded life-extension avenues.

Demographics, Adoption, and Societal Reception

Participant Demographics and Motivations

Cryonics participants are overwhelmingly male, with surveys indicating gender ratios of approximately 80-85% male and 15-20% female among members and interested individuals. This skew aligns with broader patterns in transhumanist and life-extension communities, where male participation in speculative technologies tends to predominate, potentially due to differing risk assessments or cultural factors influencing interest in radical interventions against . Average age among surveyed cryonics adherents hovers around 43 years, with significant representation across adult age groups: roughly 22% under 30, 26% aged 30-40, 35% aged 40-60, and the remainder over 60. Participants typically possess high , with over two-thirds holding college degrees or higher, concentrated in STEM fields—computer science (around 31% of degrees), (14.5%), and (15%). Professions skew toward and science: /programming (26%), scientific (15%), and healthcare// (around 12-21%), alongside / (35%). These demographics reflect individuals with technical , higher incomes (often exceeding $100,000 annually), and secular outlooks, including agnostics and atheists who view as a solvable problem rather than an inevitable or spiritual endpoint. Membership in major providers like totals approximately 1,800-1,900 as of late 2023 to 2024, with around 200 individuals cryopreserved, while the maintains similar scales of hundreds of members and over 200 patients. Participants often cite pragmatic motivations rooted in anticipated technological progress: 74% emphasize the possibility of future revival through advanced repair of preservation-induced damage, 72% value extending a worthwhile life, and 45-49% highlight technical feasibility or opposition to death as an inhumane finality. These rationales frame cryonics as a low-probability hedge against —akin to —prioritizing empirical potential over immediate evidence of success, with many expressing optimism about or molecular repair enabling restoration. Family sign-ups, particularly among women (90% of female members in one provider's cohort), frequently stem from relational ties rather than independent initiation. Overall, adoption remains niche, appealing to those who integrate cryonics into a worldview of indefinite lifespan extension via science. Membership in major cryonics organizations has grown modestly since the , remaining confined to a small global niche of enthusiasts primarily interested in . As of November 2024, the reported 1,450 cryopreservation members, 239 patients in storage, and a total of 1,828 affiliates including basic and associate members. The (CI) maintains over 100 patients, with membership figures contributing to an estimated worldwide total of 5,000 to 6,000 individuals across providers as of September 2025. Annual cryopreservations hover at 30 to 40 cases globally, reflecting incremental uptake rather than exponential expansion. Market analyses project the cryonics sector, valued at USD 10 million in 2024, to grow at a compound annual rate of 7.5% to 12%, potentially reaching USD 100 million by 2026, driven by niche demand in affluent, tech-oriented demographics but constrained by broader societal factors. Key barriers to wider adoption include prohibitive costs, , and institutional resistance. Cryopreservation fees range from USD 28,000 for CI whole-body procedures to USD 200,000 or more for Alcor services, often requiring arrangements for funding, which deter non-wealthy individuals and exacerbate access inequalities. Mainstream deems cryonics unfeasible due to irreversible cellular damage from and ischemia, with critics arguing revival exceeds current or foreseeable , labeling it a false hope unsupported by . Regulatory and legal hurdles, including disputes over certification, postmortem procedures, and , further complicate arrangements, as seen in cases raising questions of enforceability and posthumous . Cultural and psychological factors, such as religious objections to bodily denial and opposition to unconventional end-of-life choices, compound these issues, limiting appeal beyond a core of rationalist and transhumanist communities.

Reception in Scientific, Media, and Cultural Spheres

The overwhelmingly regards cryonics as speculative and unsupported by , often categorizing it as due to irreversible cellular damage from formation and the absence of viable revival mechanisms. The Society for Cryobiology's 2018 position statement explicitly states that "cryonics is not ," defining it as the of human cadavers or brains for future reanimation—a practice viewed as an unproven gamble rather than a validated extension of cryobiological techniques, which focus on reversible preservation of small tissues or organs. Neuroscientist Michael Hendricks of has critiqued the premise that frozen neural structures retain sufficient information for reconstruction, noting that connectomes provide only static wiring diagrams lacking dynamic synaptic chemistry, molecular modifications, and patterns essential to ; he further argues that any simulated revival would produce a distinct entity, not the original individual. Media coverage of cryonics typically emphasizes dramatic personal stories or ethical quandaries over technical viability, fostering a portrayal of it as an eccentric last resort for the affluent. A 2015 New York Times feature detailed 23-year-old Kim Suozzi's posthumous preservation at Alcor after battling , framing her choice as a defiant bet on future despite expert dismissals of feasibility. Similarly, a 2016 Guardian article examined the storage of approximately 350 bodies in , underscoring detractors' concerns that complexity— involving trillions of synapses and biochemical states—renders revival improbable without unprecedented advances. In entertainment media, cryonics-inspired appears in films like Demolition Man (1993), where it enables cryogenic punishment and revival, though such depictions prioritize narrative convenience over accurate challenges like toxicity. Culturally, cryonics occupies a marginal position, evoking perceptions of hubris or denialism against mortality rather than mainstream aspiration, with public opinion reflecting low familiarity and enthusiasm. A 2021 survey of 1,487 U.S. internet users found 75% awareness of cryopreservation but only 6% intending to undergo it (mostly unformalized plans), 20% expressing interest in signing up, and 42% deeming revival unlikely, with men and higher socioeconomic groups showing modestly greater optimism. This tepid reception stems from incongruence with dominant Western funereal norms emphasizing acceptance of death, compounded by cryonics' high costs (often exceeding $200,000) and marketing aimed at atheist techno-optimists, which alienates broader demographics including women and religious adherents. While pop culture nods, such as in Vanilla Sky (2001), romanticize cryogenic escape from consequence, they reinforce its image as speculative fantasy rather than practical ethos.

Future Prospects and Debates

Ongoing Research and Technological Forecasts

Research into cryonics preservation techniques continues to emphasize processes to reduce formation and tissue damage during cooling, with organizations like developing protocols that achieve near-glass-like solidification in neural tissues. Alcor's Readiness And Procedure Innovation Deployment (RAPID) initiative, launched in recent years, targets novel tools for standby monitoring and rapid response, including integration of wearable devices capable of detecting terminal events in approximately 69% of cases within minutes. Parallel efforts explore structural brain preservation as a bridge to future scanning or repair technologies, evaluating methods like aldehyde-stabilized to maintain integrity. Technological forecasts for revival center on molecular nanotechnology to enable nanoscale repair of cryopreserved structures, postulating the deployment of self-replicating assemblers to excise cryoprotectant molecules, mend fractures, and regenerate ischemic damage at the cellular level. Detailed scenarios outline phased revival: initial non-invasive scanning for , followed by gradual thawing and targeted molecular interventions to restore viability, contingent on achieving Drexlerian capabilities. These projections draw from analyses estimating high conditional success probabilities—approaching 90% or more—if matures sufficiently to handle atomic-scale reconstruction, though empirical validation remains absent as no mammalian revival from has occurred. Expert surveys among biostasis practitioners forecast variable timelines, with some cryobiologists projecting initial human revivals feasible around 2040, predicated on nanotechnology breakthroughs enabling tissue repair beyond current regenerative medicine limits. Prediction markets and domain forecasts incorporate uncertainties, including the integration of cryonics with advancing fields like stem cell therapies and isochoric freezing, but emphasize that revival odds hinge on exponential progress in computation and fabrication rather than incremental cryopreservation refinements alone.

Potential Pathways to Revival and Integration with Medicine

Revival of cryopreserved patients would necessitate repairing multifaceted damage incurred from the terminal condition, the dying process, ischemia-reperfusion injury, and cryopreservation itself, including cryoprotectant toxicity, fracturing, and molecular denaturation. Proponents argue that , involving swarms of medical nanorobots, offers a feasible pathway by enabling precise, atom-by-atom reconstruction of biological structures. In a detailed protocol outlined by nanomedicine researcher Robert A. Freitas Jr. in 2022, nanorobots would first perform comprehensive molecular scanning to map the patient's preserved state, followed by targeted interventions such as extracting agents, annealing microfractures in tissues, reversing ischemic damage through protein refolding and cellular reconstruction, and restoring neural connectomes to enable . This approach draws on principles of self-replicating assemblers and positional control, concepts advanced by , who posits that such technology could achieve revival probabilities exceeding 50% if developed, contingent on avoiding existential risks to civilization. Integration with future medicine hinges on cryonics serving as an interim stabilization technique, bridging current therapeutic limits to anticipated advances in regenerative and . For instance, if comprehensive repair proves viable, could evolve into a standardized for patients with untreatable conditions, akin to how induced is used today for to mitigate brain damage. Scientific analyses, such as those evaluating low-temperature metabolic stasis, support the rationale that halting biological processes at -196°C preserves structural information sufficiently for later decoding and repair, provided future tools like neural prosthetics or whole-brain emulation complement physical restoration. However, feasibility remains speculative, as no mammalian revival from has occurred, and success depends on breakthroughs in not yet realized, with estimates for initial human applications ranging from decades to centuries. Alternative or adjunct pathways include hybrid strategies leveraging advances in organoid regeneration or stem cell therapies to rebuild tissues post-thaw, though these are deemed insufficient alone for addressing nanoscale cryopreservation artifacts without nanotech augmentation. preservation techniques, such as aldehyde-stabilized , aim to fix neural architecture against freezing damage, potentially integrating with scanning technologies for digital uploading as a revival variant, though this raises debates over identity continuity. Overall, while cryonics organizations like Alcor emphasize these pathways as rationally defensible bets on technological progress, mainstream views them as unproven, highlighting the need for empirical validation through incremental research in and repair models.

Broader Implications for Mortality and Human Progress

Cryonics reframes mortality not as an absolute endpoint but as a potentially reversible process following , provided the brain's information content is preserved through rapid . This view posits that marks the onset of decay rather than irreversible cessation, with future molecular repair technologies capable of restoring viability, thereby distinguishing between temporary biological arrest and true . Such a perspective challenges traditional definitions of mortality, suggesting that withholding equates to forgoing access to anticipated medical advancements that could aging-related damage. By bridging current medical limitations to hypothetical future capabilities, cryonics incentivizes progress in fields like , , and , as the need to revive preserved patients would necessitate breakthroughs in tissue repair and reconstruction. Proponents, including , argue this creates a feedback loop where public interest in accelerates research into and , potentially enabling broader applications beyond cryonics patients. Empirical justification draws from successes in cryopreserving simpler biological structures, implying scalability to human neural tissue with advancing technology. On a societal scale, widespread adoption could disrupt evolutionary dynamics by favoring genetic continuity across extended timelines, fostering cultures oriented toward indefinite lifespans and rather than finite legacies. This might redirect resources toward research, redefining human development around adaptability and technological integration, though realization depends on unproven revival methods. Critics, however, highlight the absence of verified revivals, cautioning that such implications remain speculative without empirical validation of preservation .

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4733321/
  2. https://www.britannica.com/science/cryonics
  3. https://www.alcor.org/introduction-to-cryonics/
  4. https://www.tomorrow.bio/post/a-brief-history-of-cryonics
  5. https://cryonics.org/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9219731/
  7. https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/09/15/109906/the-false-science-of-cryonics/
  8. https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/10/2/lsad028/7381683
  9. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/20/cryonics-debate-science-freezing-human-bodies
  10. https://cryonics.org/faq/
  11. https://alcor.org/docs/cryopreservation-procedures-section-02-theoretical-rationale.pdf
  12. https://cryonics.org/cryonics-library/scientific-justification-for-cryonics/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11416988/
  14. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/docs/cryopreservation-procedures-section-02-theoretical-rationale.pdf
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5531538_Scientific_Justification_of_Cryonics_Practice
  16. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/the-cryobiological-case-for-cryonics/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7995302/
  18. https://www.21cm.com/pdfs/2010-Thermodynamics.pdf
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011224009000674
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011224005000027
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25428002/
  22. https://www.tomorrow.bio/post/difference-between-freezing-vitrification-cryopreservation
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2781091/
  24. https://consarctic.com/post/slow-freezing-vs-vitrification-a-scientific-comparison-in-cryopreservation
  25. https://www.alcor.org/membership/
  26. https://cryonics.org/become-a-member/
  27. https://cryonics.org/members/member-forms/a-guide-to-cryopreservation-contracts/
  28. https://www.alcor.org/cryopreservation-procedures/
  29. https://www.alcor.org/deployment-and-recovery/
  30. https://www.alcor.org/library/comprehensive-member-standby/
  31. https://cryonics.org/guide-to-cryonics-procedures/
  32. https://alcorcryonics.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/15860750748813-Can-I-be-cryopreserved-before-I-legally-die
  33. https://www.alcor.org/faqs/
  34. https://cryonics.org/deceased-non-member/
  35. https://www.tomorrow.bio/post/what-agents-used-human-cryopreservation
  36. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/introduction-to-alcor-procedures/
  37. https://cryonics.org/members/cryostats-for-cryogenic-storage/
  38. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/docs/cryopreservation-procedures-section-20-storage.pdf
  39. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/allocation-of-long-term-care-costs-at-alcor/
  40. https://cryonics.org/funding-for-cryostasis/
  41. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/cryopreservation-funding-and-inflation/
  42. https://biostasis.substack.com/p/critical-questions-about-patient
  43. https://www.regeneration.ai/p/who-funds-cryo-the-2025-money-map
  44. https://www.alcor.org/
  45. https://www.alcor.org/alcor-membership-statistics/
  46. https://cryonics.org/services/
  47. https://cryonics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CI-MAG04_2024.pdf
  48. https://tech.eu/2025/05/26/not-just-science-fiction-tomorrow-bio-has-preserved-20-people-and10-pets-for-future-revival/
  49. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250115-cryonics-the-start-up-that-wants-to-freeze-you-in-suspended-animation
  50. https://kriorus.ru/en
  51. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/suspension-failures-lessons-from-the-early-years/
  52. https://www.alcor.org/resources/blog/alcor-case-metrics-1967-1999/
  53. https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/cryonics3.htm
  54. https://www.alcor.org/reference-archive/
  55. https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/health/uk-teenager-cryonics-body-preservation
  56. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/frozen-in-time-british-mans-body-cryopreserved-in-hope-of-future-revival-6535012
  57. https://cryonics.org/case-report/
  58. https://www.independent.com/2019/04/17/in-cryonics-lawsuit-son-fights-for-fathers-frozen-head/
  59. https://bigthink.com/the-future/cryonics-horror-stories/
  60. https://www.alcor.org/membership/pricing-and-dues/
  61. https://cryonics.org/ci-advantage/
  62. https://www.tomorrow.bio/post/how-much-does-cryonics-cost
  63. https://cryonics.miraheze.org/wiki/Life_insurance
  64. https://cryonics.org/members/funding-life-insurance/
  65. https://www.tomorrow.bio/post/cryonics-accessibility-beyond-the-realm-of-the-wealthy-2023-10-5304344891-cryonics
  66. https://biostasis.substack.com/p/how-smart-people-like-you-fund-cryopreservation
  67. https://www.biolifesolutions.com/blog/cryopreservation/the-history-of-cryopreservation/
  68. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/ynqnz1/til_that_james_lovelock_an_english_scientist/
  69. https://www.tomorrow.bio/post/robert-ettinger-father-of-cryonics
  70. https://cryonics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Prospect_Book.pdf
  71. https://gostbooks.com/en-us/products/the-prospect-of-immortality
  72. https://cryonics.org/history-timeline/
  73. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/452742-first-person-to-be-cryonically-suspended
  74. https://www.alcor.org/resources/blog/james-bedford-first-cryonaut-is-now-the-longest-surviving-human-being-ever/
  75. https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/the-history-of-cryonics-a-timeline
  76. https://www.alcor.org/about/
  77. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/docs/cryonics-magazine-2017-03.pdf
  78. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/new-cryopreservation-technology/
  79. https://www.alcor.org/research-development/
  80. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38824-8
  81. https://theconversation.com/you-can-now-be-frozen-after-death-in-australia-if-you-get-revived-in-the-future-will-you-still-legally-be-the-same-person-230876
  82. https://www.reddit.com/r/cryonics/comments/15bdti6/how_the_worlds_5_relevant_cryogenics_companies/
  83. https://cryonics.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CI-MAG-2025-01.pdf
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11753176/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7967093/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4620521/
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030698779290133W
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7989039/
  89. https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/120593-trending-science-landmark-ruling-lifts-the-lid-on-the-hope-science-and-ethics-of-cryogenic-pr
  90. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ckS7PuisZ4cCnh2Qf/martinenaite-and-tavenier-on-cryonics
  91. https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/nano-nonsense-and-cryonics/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3275130/
  93. https://philpapers.org/archive/CROICA-2.pdf
  94. https://acjol.org/index.php/njll/article/download/4507/4383
  95. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1611&context=jchlp
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6093470/
  97. https://www.melanieswan.com/documents/2019CryonicsSophia.pdf
  98. https://philarchive.org/archive/DOMRPI
  99. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44014182
  100. https://aeon.co/essays/is-it-rational-to-think-we-can-cheat-death-with-cryonics
  101. https://www.livescience.com/health/death/we-dont-yet-have-the-know-how-to-properly-maintain-a-corpse-brain-why-cryonics-is-a-non-starter-in-our-quest-for-immortality
  102. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38031428
  103. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/20/cryonics-frozen-girls-father-says-providers-exploit-the-vulnerable
  104. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/docs/cryonics-magazine-2016-01.pdf
  105. https://cryospherepress.substack.com/p/the-cryonics-survey-of-2022-part
  106. https://www.jetpress.org/volume3/badger.pdf
  107. https://biostasis.substack.com/p/which-cryonics-organization-is-the
  108. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/style/cryonics-freezing-bodies.html
  109. https://www.tomorrow.bio/post/the-importance-of-signing-up-your-family-for-cryonics-2023-04-01
  110. https://www.futuredatastats.com/cryonics-market
  111. https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/cryonics-technology-1456349
  112. https://insight.tomorrow.bio/articles/understanding-the-cost-of-cryonics-pricing-and-breakdown-explained
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10639002/
  114. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-12/cryopreservation-dilemmas-social-financial-legal-concerns/104061896
  115. https://www.societyforcryobiology.org/assets/documents/Position_Statement_Cryonics_Nov_18.pdf
  116. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/us/cancer-immortality-cryogenics.html
  117. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/the-cryonics-dilemma-will-deep-frozen-bodies-be-fit-for-new-life
  118. https://www.meegle.com/en_us/topics/cryonics/cryonics-and-media-representation
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7790260/
  120. https://www.ej-theology.org/index.php/theology/article/view/79
  121. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2016.1167576
  122. https://www.alcor.org/resources/blog/support-our-new-research-initiative-rapid-readiness-and-procedure-innovation-deployment/
  123. https://www.alcor.org/resources/blog/research-in-motion-alcor-newsletter-feb-2025/
  124. https://www.alcor.org/docs/cryostasis-revival-summary.pdf
  125. https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/a-cryopreservation-revival-scenario-using-molecular-nanotechnology/
  126. http://www.ralphmerkle.com/cryo/probability.html
  127. https://cryonicssociety.org/futurenews/
  128. https://biostasis.substack.com/p/forecasting-revival-dates
  129. https://wjbphs.com/sites/default/files/WJBPHS-2024-0785.pdf
  130. https://www.alcor.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CryostasisRevivalV2.11.pdf?ref=emil-bio
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.