How dead is dead?(economist.com)
economist.com
How dead is dead?
http://www.economist.com/node/21526321
22 comments
>It's not very fashionable (especially in NY) to describe oneself as 'religious'
Or perhaps the people aren't very religious. I think the ambiguity your point raises is valid but that your thinking appears to be invalid. People aren't religious because they don't take part in religious activity (a religion or similar) and not because of their beliefs.
Researchers that don't define key words for participants is a little shocking for me.
Or perhaps the people aren't very religious. I think the ambiguity your point raises is valid but that your thinking appears to be invalid. People aren't religious because they don't take part in religious activity (a religion or similar) and not because of their beliefs.
Researchers that don't define key words for participants is a little shocking for me.
[deleted]
Well, the clear thing at least is that people seem to understand the difference between medically dead and information-theoretical dead, and possibly soul-dead. I'm wondering what the results would be if they cremated the medically dead guy instead of buried him. At the very least even religious people seem to think what a person is rests in a brain. Now on to the next set of steps to try and get people to sign up for cryonics...
This American Life produced an incredibly insightful episode on early cryonic institutions
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/354/m...
I don't have a medical background, but as far as I know, the medical advances of three decades haven't brought us closer to safely preserving human bodies.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/354/m...
I don't have a medical background, but as far as I know, the medical advances of three decades haven't brought us closer to safely preserving human bodies.
Research has come a long way. Dr. Brian Wowk gave a good presentation on the current state of tissue and organ cryopreservation here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2157944955525659858&...
In 2004, some scientists at 21st Century Medicine managed to cryopreserve a rabbit kidney, thaw it, and transplant it back into the rabbit. They removed the other kidney so that only the rabbit had to rely solely on the treated kidney. It survived, though at first it had elevated creatinine levels. They repeated this experiment several times to show it wasn't a fluke. The paper is here: http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/cryopreservation_advances.pdf
The cryoprotectant invented by that team is now used by Alcor. The Cryonics Institute uses a similar formula. If either of those organizations get to you in time, the nanostructure of your brain will be accurately preserved.
In 2004, some scientists at 21st Century Medicine managed to cryopreserve a rabbit kidney, thaw it, and transplant it back into the rabbit. They removed the other kidney so that only the rabbit had to rely solely on the treated kidney. It survived, though at first it had elevated creatinine levels. They repeated this experiment several times to show it wasn't a fluke. The paper is here: http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/cryopreservation_advances.pdf
The cryoprotectant invented by that team is now used by Alcor. The Cryonics Institute uses a similar formula. If either of those organizations get to you in time, the nanostructure of your brain will be accurately preserved.
http://www.alcor.org/cryomyths.html#myth2
(Also, just in case any young people on HN think they have no chance of dying, add up a decade of 'Death probability' on http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html )
(Also, just in case any young people on HN think they have no chance of dying, add up a decade of 'Death probability' on http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html )
I don't understand. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=life+expectancy+at+21 says that my life expectancy is 76.62 years and my probability of dying is 0.001329. That's a really low probability of dying already and I haven't even weighted in statistics like being healthy, high income, and taking the bus instead of car or bike. I can't believe that my probability of dying before I'm thirty is any higher than 0.1%.
0.001329 is 0.13%, and that's just for the next year of your life. On Wolfram Alpha, look under survival probability and you'll see that your chance of dying before age 30 is 0.93%.
I'm well aware that 0.13% is for the next year. The survival probability on Wolfram Alpha, however, doesn't take more specific statistics into account. The only things the data have are race, age, and sex. My supposition is if it took more interesting things into account (socioeconomic class, general health, commute patterns, drug use, etc) my actual probability of death before age 30 is no more than 0.1%. I'm not worried.
There's no way your probability is close to 0.1%.
Exhibit A: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Death_by_Age_2007-a.pd...
Exhibit B: life insurance companies collect a lot of data from you, and no company will price a 21 year old anywhere near 0.1%.
Exhibit A: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Death_by_Age_2007-a.pd...
Exhibit B: life insurance companies collect a lot of data from you, and no company will price a 21 year old anywhere near 0.1%.
The CDC data just shows causes of death. The first most common is "Unintentional injury," which I assume covers things like car accidents and risky sports. Neither affect me because I don't drive (take the bus) and don't participate in dangerous sports.
I shouldn't have to address homicide. I'm from the Baltimore area -- I know exactly who that age group is weighted by and I'm not concerned about dying by homicide.
I'm not going to commit suicide.
Malignant neoplasm (cancer) is unlikely. I'm low on risk factors and don't have a high genetic propensity. I'm also in the fortunate position of having a better knowledge of my medical risk factors than most people because I'm from a family of doctors.
Your second example isn't even a real example. You have no data, you're just making a claim. As far as life insurance goes, I doubt they collect extremely accurate statistical data. It's not in their best interests to lower their premiums so I would expect any life insurance policy to be heavily weighted in their favor.
I shouldn't have to address homicide. I'm from the Baltimore area -- I know exactly who that age group is weighted by and I'm not concerned about dying by homicide.
I'm not going to commit suicide.
Malignant neoplasm (cancer) is unlikely. I'm low on risk factors and don't have a high genetic propensity. I'm also in the fortunate position of having a better knowledge of my medical risk factors than most people because I'm from a family of doctors.
Your second example isn't even a real example. You have no data, you're just making a claim. As far as life insurance goes, I doubt they collect extremely accurate statistical data. It's not in their best interests to lower their premiums so I would expect any life insurance policy to be heavily weighted in their favor.
Perhaps it's not a case of people really believing that dead people have more cognitive abilities than the "living". This again is one of those tricky morality/judgement issues which is far beyond the scope of this simple survey.
Perhaps the cognition rating was more in a social context. Death, is a very critical part of live. It's almost a rite of passage in some ways. After death, you leave behind your legacy. If you're a leader, a successor might pick up the torch and rally the troops in your memory, so in that sense, a dead person's memory/personality may be more "alive" than one in a persistent vegetative state.
Case and point, Ariel Sharon. (I mean no offense to him) Had he passed on, it may even have energized his party/cause etc. Instead, being in a coma has actually been worse for him. It's hard to inspire others in the "memory of" when that person is still breathing. Even worse, when someone comes around, their cause, work etc may no longer be relevant if it's after a very prolonged period of time.
I think the article oversimplifies the issue. Chalking it up to "religious" and trying to correlate that with people thoughts seem rather random. Perhaps "religious" people may be thinking more from a societal context? Nevertheless, if this is a serious effort, I hope they have follow up articles with more data that really helps identify this. It's not just an interesting topic in that it defines death, but it reveals more about the inner workings of the more complex parts of our cognitive system and how we develop our "values" (no pun intended).
Someone in the comments made a good point:
People saw the vegetative David as "asleep" so, does not have the ability perform any of those mental tasks, while religious people see the soul of dead David still there, and "agree" the dead David could still perform those mental tasks.
People saw the vegetative David as "asleep" so, does not have the ability perform any of those mental tasks, while religious people see the soul of dead David still there, and "agree" the dead David could still perform those mental tasks.
Another similar take: one is trapped, the other is gone.
"In another, he died. In the third, his entire brain was destroyed except for one part that kept him breathing."
Maybe the choice of words used is significant. On popular tv there are now shows featuring people who had "technically" died but were later brought back from the dead. When something is destroyed, however, it is gone.
The choice given to interviewees reminds me, for some reason, of the childhood riddle, 'Would you rather be nearly drowned or nearly saved?'
Maybe the choice of words used is significant. On popular tv there are now shows featuring people who had "technically" died but were later brought back from the dead. When something is destroyed, however, it is gone.
The choice given to interviewees reminds me, for some reason, of the childhood riddle, 'Would you rather be nearly drowned or nearly saved?'
To echo one of the reader comments, perhaps this says more about the capabilities of the living than about those of the dead.
"That those who do not are inclined to do so unless heavily prompted not to is curious indeed."
What a confusing way of ending an article. It would translate into Ruby to something like this:
def ascribe_mental_acuity_to_the_dead?
What a confusing way of ending an article. It would translate into Ruby to something like this:
def ascribe_mental_acuity_to_the_dead?
true
unless believe_in_after_life
false if heavily_prompted_not_to_believe_in_after_life
end
I now understand why people choose Euthanasia
It makes them "less dead" actually
I would think the subject of "what is life" is too subjective to chart onto a simple line graph.
They should have added an option where David died while being in vegetative state.
Must be the fault of Twilight. It is practically a given these days that dead people continue to roam the world as vampires, and in fact have more fun than living people.
If this was the exact wording of the question, I think they should have instead asked people to rate to what extent they believe in a soul. It's not very fashionable (especially in NY) to describe oneself as 'religious', but a great many people who will tell you 'I'm not religious' still believe in souls, heaven, angels, etc.