Contrary to what my previous post might indicate, I don't take a particular stand on the ethics/practicability of cryogenics. It was just a slow day, and I had nothing better to do than badmouth transhumanists.
So, this being a similarly slow day: The Virtuosi had a post on cryopreservation, and the best bet for successful cryogenics still seems to me to be vitrification. But a 90% success rate is not very good if you are freezing a whole person; not many people would be happy with only 9/10 of their brain cells (though there are a few where I don't think it would matter...)
You need to try things on a smaller scale and then extend the concept, but with the speed that's required (the heat equation holds doesn't it? no idea, that's what I get for writing blog posts rather than taking freshman physics) how do you avoid damaging a small, but essential part of so large a whole?
Much better to try and hibernate through World War III. I think it is far more practical , there have been real successes with small mammals. I always thought chemically-induced suspended-animation was a better bet; and of course that's the definition of someone who's right: "someone who agrees with me."
Anyway this post was more about the logistics and practical limits of cryopreservation, than the social effects (not that I'm qualified, but I still feel that people don't cover as much of that as they should.)