X-Message-Number: 12002 From: "Peter C. McCluskey" <> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:05:27 -0700 Subject: Why Cryonics Isn't Popular (Maybe) References: <> >Message #11993 >Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:10:00 -0700 >From: Robin Hanson <> > >On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 Saul Kent wrote: >> I don't agree. If we had evidence of the >>effectiveness of cryonics technology, we would have >>a basis for assuming that cryonics patients could be >>restored to life in the relatively near future, which >>might be less "alien" and "scarry" to people. > >Even if we had completely effective cryonics today, >it could still be a century before we know how to >cure most of the conditions which now cause cryonics >patients to "die." That seems long enough to be alien. That sounds like a good explanation of why cryonics sounds alien to many people, but I don't agree that a century is a realistic forecast. I'd guess that the vast majority of heart problems and cancers will be curable in something like 15 to 30 years. I also see reasons to suspect that uploading frozen brains will be possible in 20 to 40 years (although it will take more than just a good timetable to make this sound unalien). You have strongly reinforced my gut feeling that arguing that suspendees might be revived soon is an important part of selling cryonics. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Critmail (http://crit.org/critmail.html): http://www.rahul.net/pcm | Accept nothing less to archive your mailing list Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12002