X-Message-Number: 14425 Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 07:05:28 -0400 From: Paul Wakfer <> Subject: Re: #14417 - guesswork References: <> > Message #14417 > From: > Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:48:31 EDT > Subject: guesswork > > In message #14414, 4 Sep., Paul Wakfer referred to a previous estimate, about > two years ago (I think by 21CM people) of 10 years and $10 million to achieve > perfected whole brain suspended animation (of a dog, I believe), and I > believe Paul endorsed that estimate and used it enthusiastically in trying to > get pledges for the Prometheus Project. The original estimate used at the start of the Prometheus Project (in June 1996) was that perfected whole *brain* cryopreservation would take 10 years and $1M per year. That was the basis of the beginning of the PP. After its successful beginning (immediate $100K per year in pledges), the project goals were expanded to include a more ambitious second phase, an additional 10 years at $10M per year to perfect whole body suspended animation. Thus, the project became a total length of 20 years for whole bodies instead of only 10 for brains. All estimates were my own, made after consultation with knowledgable scientists. > In message #14280, 16 Aug., Paul estimated 10-15 years and $100 million or > less for "perfected vitrification." I am certainly confused here since message #14280 is your own message: #14280: addendum [Ettinger] from the CryoNet digest of 10 Aug. In addition, *I* have never used the phrase "perfected vitrification" since I do not regard vitrification as in any manner equivalant to suspended animation. I *have* said and I still do say that a reasonable estimate (now more than 4 years after the start of the PP) is 15 years to perfected whole body suspended animation at a cost of $100M. Note that this is essentially equivalent to my original estimate above (at the start of the PP) of 20 years and $110M. > In the 4 Sep. message he also says that the two-year ago estimate Actually over 4 years ago now (how time does fly! :-) > added > another 10 years and another $10 million to go from whole dog head to whole > body, or a total of 20 years and $20 million for perfected human whole body > suspended animation. Bob, if you read my message again carefully that is not what I said. I specifically omitted the 10th step (human clinical trails) in my estimate, ending with baboons. And even then I stated that the last years (working with whole dogs and baboons) would likely cost more than $2M per year. Human clinical trials for whole body suspended animation would last several years and would likely cost even more than $10M per year. > Well, obviously 15 years and $100 million for perfected vitrification is not > very consistent with 20 years and $20 million for perfected whole body > suspended animation. Certainly not, but then those are not estimates which I made. > Naturally, I realize that opinions can change, and guesstimates are only > guesstimates (more like wild guesses, really), Not quite. The estimates are based on past and current experience regarding rates of progress and were made in consultation with several scientists involved. They are not "wild guesses" any more than is any projection from present knowledge into the future. I think there are excellent reasons that they are much less "wild guesses" than are your own projections of the ability to fully restore cryonics patients frozen with current technology, or the projections of the date of occurence of a world of plenty and the end of aging/death brought about by Nanotechnology. > and that a fund raiser may > perhaps be forgiven a bit of enthusiasm, But a promoter or fund raiser should never be forgiven for inconsistency or dishonesty, and about these I am as scrupulous as I can possibly be. > but not a few people on the Cryonet > list seem to take seriously the quantitative opinions expressed by people > they consider authoritative--more or less as the general public takes > seriously the totally off-the-wall and unfounded statements (not even a > pretense of a calculation) of "authoritative" cryobiologists that the chances > of reviving our current patients are zero or close to it. Unfortunately, this is quite true. I deplore this tendency of too many people to accept the opinions of this or that "Guru" or other "authority" on any subject. OTOH, I think that you do a great injustice to many people on this list and elsewhere in cryonics and life-extension by suggesting that they are not capable of sifting the statements and information coming from various people and making a sound independent judgement from that information. > Greg Fahy--perhaps the most authoritative in the field--thought perfected > vitrification for kidneys was "around the corner" ten years or so ago. And it might well have been if his lab situation and funding (out of his control) had been continued as he was expecting. We must not confuse the inability to control funding of a project with the inaccuracy of prediction of scientific progress. > For that matter, when I wrote my first book in 1962--almost 40 years ago--a > few optimistic cryobiologists were predicting suspended animation within 10 > years--given increased funding and focus. Which never materialized, but I agree that estimate was highly optimistic. > I guess 10 years is a convenient > number, and more funding is always nice. A decade is a reasonably large number which people can easily grasp and think about in terms of their own life changes. > Does any of this matter? Yes. Strategic errors can be fatal to individuals > and damaging to populations. Doing nothing or doing the wrong thing can be even more damaging by not producing things which might have been, and in the case of suspended animation, not saving lives which might have been saved. > My recommendation, once more, is that everyone use his best judgment to > maximize his own chances and those of his family. That is certainly true, but the crucial factor is just what *are* the best actions "to maximize his own chances and those of his family" in a global sense. > Age, health, and financial > circumstances all enter into it, as well as guesses about the relative > importance of various kinds of research, organizational growth and > development, and your own activity. You can put your eggs in one basket, or > spread it around. > > You simply don't know when, or at what cost, success in suspended animation > will come. You do know that you have a non-negligible chance of dying within > the next decade or two--if not sooner--and that a very modest investment will > buy you cryopreservation, and that EVENTUAL success in reviving most or all > patients has extensive and detailed reasoning behind it. Sorry, but I must totally differ with this last. Instead I would say: 1. You can now have great confidence that with relatively small but sufficient funding (small as science projects of such importance go) whole body human suspended animation can be perfected and widely available within 20 years. 2. There is much evidence against and little detailed scientific support that patients cryopreserved with current techniques will ever be restored to full mental life with original persona intact, but everyone should be prepared to be cryopreserved by the best extant techniques available because doing so is the *only* chance that you have for extended life if you should become terminal before suspended animation is perfected. *Any* method of cryopreservation is better than being buried or burned. Paul Wakfer "Proud promoter of life-extension by all possible methods". Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14425