If you require to cheat death , you’re able to buy a cryonics parcel forthe price of a car . Of course , there is no saying it will figure out . Thetechnology to cryonically freeze peopleandbring them back to life does n’t yet exist – and there is no warranty it will in the future .
uncalled-for to say , cryonics ( notcryogenics ) set up a mess of faith in science and the opinion that one daytime , researcher will find a room to reverse the deep - freeze process , thereby resurrect your body and your consciousness . ( Not to mention discover a cure for what killed you in the first berth . ) And you have to hope that , if reanimated , your brain and body " arouse up " undamaged by the chemical used inthe verification process , the -196 ? ( -321 ° F ) storage temperatures , and the cryonic process more generally .
It also put a lot of cartel in the organizations involved – you do n’t want those responsible for guarding your quick-frozen consistence to go belly-up , for example , or to dispose of your torso to make way for a new customer .
Which conduce us to a man in Montana who is currently counter - suing the Alcor Life Extension Foundation for $ 1 million and his beginner ’s caput .
It all take up in 2015 , when Laurence Pilgeram , a biochemist and longsighted - fourth dimension advocator for cryonics , give way from a mettle attack . Having signalize up to be cryopreserved when he was 67 , he was taken out to an Alcor facility . There was just one small hiccough .
concord tothe Alcor website , having your entire body set aside in clip – as Pilgeram had request – requires almost instant freeze . But because Pilgeram had died at the weekend , his Word says there was a holdup getting his soundbox to the facility . And so , rather than give him the full consistence discussion , Alcor remove Pilgeram ’s head and sent the cremate remains of his physical structure to his family phallus .
Now , his Word is claiming the company is resist to return his father ’s foreland so that it can be cremated by the family . He debate his father ’s brain was improperly removed by Alcor and that his father , though a supporter of cryonics in general , was not in favour of " neurocryopreservation " , which necessitate the freeze of the foreland only . This situation is made all the more complicated by Pilgeram ’s understanding , made in 1990 , which includes the caveat Alcor may not always be able to carry out the wishes of the node due to various practicalities .
The case , which started in 2017 with Alcor suing Pilgeram junior and is due to be hear by the Superior Court of California in 2020 , highlights the stickyethicalandpracticalconundrums surrounding cryonics .
