james_davis_nicoll | Artificial torpor

I think that's bbc.co.uk, not bbc.uk.

And it's pretty damn nifty.

Fixed.

Say, could this be used to reduce the tedium of long distance flying?

The Jaunt immediately comes to mind. By which I mean, uh, yes, probably; though it would play merry hell with your body clock.

Strike that. I just thought about what happens to luggage....

A state of artificial torpor can be induced in luggage?

Or do you mean the whole depressurized compartment thing?

Sleeping passengers might find themselves accidentally delived to the wrong destination. I wonder if Robert Sheckley ever used this idea?

It would probably be optimal to wake them at the end of each leg of the flight, to reduce the airlines' liability for misrouting.

Ah - that raises an interesting possibility. Part of hibernation is reduced O2 demand. I wonder if it's enough that you wouldn't need pressurized cabins to fly at high altitude.

How far would air travel costs drop if the passengers could fly stacked like cordwood without needing the extra weight and complications of pressurization, flight attendants, little sacks of peanuts, etc.

This could be combined very plausibly with a "peak oil"-inspired scenario of airlines desperate to cut costs in the face of skyrocketing fuel prices.

Hm, would also permit high acceleration, altitudes sufficient to induce near-weightlessness, etc. without concerns about the passengers getting sick all over the cabin.

Hm, would also permit high acceleration, altitudes sufficient to induce near-weightlessness, etc. without concerns about the passengers getting sick all over the cabin.

Or they'd upchuck in their sleep, which couldn't be good.

I'd think that unlikely if the metabolism is slowed down. A lot of motion sickness has to do with being consciously aware of it.

There's probably the makings of a weight-loss craze somewhere in there.

I wonder whether the brain would still absorb sensory data. What happens if you're torporized and someone plays you recordings of, I dunno, foreign language instruction or meditation guides? It'd be very interesting to find out.

I need to read more. Because your post immediately brought to mind Valley of the Dolls, with Neely's sedation for weight-loss purposes, and of course Demolition Man, where the prison pipes in rehabilitation programs to flash-frozen convicts.

I'm getting claustrophobic just thinking about this. I hate flying now and the idea of being strapped in, placed in a stupor and then packed in like cordwood is not helping.

The A380-800F cargo plane can deliver 150 tons. Call those tonnes because I am lazy. Say the close-pack capsules each mass 50 kg and each passenger masses 100 kg, then they could deliver 1000 people. That's about double the number of people the A380 passenger variant is good for.

No inflight hijacking (except by flight crew).

But the A380 isn't optomized for this sort of operation. Figure your Average Human is fairly close to the density of water, 7 pounds per US gallon. 150 tons of humans work out to a tad over 6300 cubic feet (apologies - this can't be good for your claustrophobia). The A380 has a cargo volume of 40,000 cubic feet. So you'd need the A380's wing mated to a smaller fuselage - a 757 would probably work out about right. Smaller fuselage means less fuel consumption. Also, the payload would be a few (several?) tons higher since you only need to pressurize the crew compartment.

That's ok. I can't think in Imperial so 40,000 cubic feet means nothing to me. No claustrophobia.

Humans are about 1/10th of a cubic meter, right, but they need airflow and cooling so give them 2/10 m^3, for a total of 200 m^3 for 1000 people. Or a cube ~6 m on a side, not that people lend themselves to being stacked in cubes and not that cubes are good shape for planes.

Are you assuming the passenger cubbies each have their own air supply? Because if not, you do need to pressurize the plane because even sleeping people need to breathe.

I'd say a person is closer to 0.15 m^3 (1m waist circumference, 2m tall) - but close enough. Our volume estimates are around the same (1000 people in a 757-767 sized fuselage, depending on how much baggage they want to bring along).

Since the hibernating people are running with a metabolic rate that's 10% of an awake person, their O2 demand is similarly reduced. My assumption is that their O2 demand can be satisfied at a lower atmospheric pressure. If I have time I'll go digging around for a graph of O2 saturation versus ppO2, and see how low of a pressure you can go and still satisfy a hibernating sea-level-acclimatized human.

Lungs work almost well in reverse as they do normally, or so humane experiments involving dogs and hard vacuum indicate. I'd worry about low pressure killing the people, which gcould negativelt impact the company's image.

I loved that when they reported on it on All Things Considered, they led-in with talking about science fiction and stasis.

(reposted for correct icon) So let me see if I have this straight: we humans produce the very element we need to induce our own hibernation? All right then -- how many bean burritos do I need to eat to hibernate till the year 2100?

I wonder if this even works on humans? It seems to me that I keep hearing new items about how they've found ways to make mice live 3x longer or not put on excess weight or go into torpor and then it never appears for humans. I don't think I want immortal, fit mice who can sleep their way to the stars.

Immortal, fit, and smelly mice at that.

I'm paranoid enough to wonder whether the secret of immortality, or merely living three times as long, would get out to the general public. Perhaps not until we really can sleep our way to the new frontier and not burden our governments too much with excess population.

Or rather: "Who died in here?" said Daniel Boone.

There's lots of room for more people. Canada has what, 3 people per km^2? And many of the empty regions are at least somewhat habitable, given the same sort of technology that would let you settle Mars.

OK, Mars is unlikely to have the same blackfly problem as Canada. Insufficient lift for their little wings, you know. Moose wearing marssuits may be a problem but I think the mammoth problem is overstated.

Anyway, we seem to be close to the inflexion point on world population growth. In a century, the problem might be producing sufficient kids to keep the economy going [1].

1: Actually, it will be probably be something whose roots are staring us in the face today that we're overlooking.

I was thinking of countries other than Canada, but of course you're right that sheer acreage isn't the problem at the moment. The question is what we're willing to put up with. How inhospitable an environment will people accept in large numbers? Here in the US, for instance, how high will gas prices have to rise until people stop buying SUVs, for example? Some people say $3/gallon, I'm betting on $4.

Interesting tradeoff idea: sure, you can have the immortality formula, but you have to live on Ellesmere Island. ~~Hibernating.~~

There's no part of Canada that will kill you dead as quickly as any place in the system off Earth. If you can settle Mars, Manitoba should be easy.

You're paying for the prestige address. I mean, which is more hip, a cryo-condo in Manitoba or a Sattlemeier disk house in Amazonis Planitia?
"Dahling, all the best people are moving to Tharsis."

Okay, getting serious for just a moment: the thing about settling any part of Mars, even the dodgy part, is that it's making history. People will pay with time, money, elbow grease, and family ties for the privilege of settling there. Not only that, they'll know they're in for long-term hardship and therefore won't expect much from their surroundings. But for a lot of the hardy pioneers, the wilds of Manitoba might be simultaneously too near and too far.

I'm already distracting myself from other work by posting here, or I'd look up what people expect from life in Siberia these days.

'm already distracting myself from other work by posting here, or I'd look up what people expect from life in Siberia these days.

A ticket to any place warm, is my impression.

You can price the maximum cost that oil is likely to reach by looking at the cost of synthesizing it directly from air, water and some source of energy. BOTECs put the energy cost of assembling a barrel of oil from raw materials at around $70.00 [1] or about 50% higher than the present price of oil. Obviously we're unlikely to be able to turn electricity into oil with 100% efficiency but on the other hand, there are shortcuts we can take to avoid making oil from the most basic raw materials. It seems to me reasonable to expect prices to be stable at no more than twice the present cost. Oh, sure, short term shoartages may cause temporary price surges but I don't expect that to last.

How much of the price of gasoline is taxes? Perhaps if the economic effect of high energy costs is undesirable, the tax on gasoline could be relaxed a little, to be replaced by (something comic and highly repressive: fill this in later).

1: The problem is that the Saudis can produce a barrel of oil for much, much less than %70.00.

Oh, they'd release immortality in a heartbeat. I'm thinking that the general political reaction would be "Yhea! No More Pension Obligations!" Also "Cheap healthcare!" Actually given the structure of biologicial/medical research I have my doubts that keeping this sort of thing secret would even be possible.

You win. You're way more cynical than I am.

I can hardly wait for Bush's speech on the Culture of Eternal Life.

It seems to me that I keep hearing new items about how they've found ways to make mice live 3x longer or not put on excess weight or go into torpor and then it never appears for humans.

"If you're a mouse and you've got cancer, we can cure you."

That's a quote from the CEO of a biotech company. I expect you can explain it by mice not having the right to sue.

Gareth Wilson

It's because the lab mice are running the show.

By exposing them to hours and hours of the Internet?

Artificial torpor

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

AAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Re: AAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Re: AAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Re: AAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Re: AAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Oil Prices

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject