Aurelia Song argues cryonics makes sense even without revival proof, citing Frozen Zoo

Aurelia Song, a dedicated advocate for end-of-life whole-body preservation, tackles the most common objection: without proof of revival, preservation seems pointless. She calls this the "immediate revival objection" and respectfully disagrees, drawing a powerful parallel to the San Diego Frozen Zoo, founded in 1975 by Dr. Kurt Benirschke. At that time, DNA was barely understood as a programmable molecule, cloning was decades away, and PCR hadn't been invented. Yet Benirschke preserved cells from endangered species using liquid nitrogen, relying only on the basic knowledge that DNA is durable and can be stored at low temperatures. Today, 50 years later, those samples are finally being used to aid conservation and potentially revive extinct species. Song argues that the key lesson is that preservation often requires far less knowledge than revival, and that waiting for a complete understanding can mean losing the opportunity to preserve what matters.

Song applies this logic to human cryopreservation: we don't need to know exactly how to revive a person—or even fully understand the brain—to preserve it with current technology. Just as the Frozen Zoo didn't need to know how to clone a mammoth to save its cells, we can preserve whole bodies today using vitrification and cryogenic storage, trusting that future science will find ways to repair and revive them. The critical factor is capturing the information (neural structure, cellular integrity) before decay sets in. Song acknowledges that it's a bet on future capabilities, but argues it's a bet with high potential payoff and low downside. Her essay calls for making preservation a global tradition, not because revival is guaranteed, but because preservation is feasible now and gives future generations an option they would not otherwise have.