X-Message-Number: 15559
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:34:57 -0500
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Mr Smith goes to CI - #15533, 15534
References: <>

> Message #15533
> From: "George Smith" <>
> References: <>
> Subject: Re: Military Triage?
> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:37:44 -0800
> 
> I would suggest that cryonics better parallels the use of medivac - loading
> the hopefully recoverable bodies on board the helicopter to be ferried to
> the future hospital where they can be hopefully healed.
> 
> I actually think that the concept of triage is not really appropriate here
> as we are only bickering over how to best to "treat" (prepare) the bodies
> before loading them on the cryonics "helicopter" OR which kind of cryonics
> "helicopter" to use to ferry the bodies to that future hospital.

The concept of triage is always appropriate. If the "body" is nothing
but a pool of "goo" or a pile of ashes, I think that we would agree that
sending it to the future is futile. Somewhere between these extremes and
a health body without major damage at the moment of death declaration
(if not a contradiction in terms) lies a large grey area where the
patients will only be partially recoverable with greater or lesser
amounts of their memories, personality and other defining mind
attributes missing. However, it is also appropriate to look at cryonics
from a cost/benefit pov, and if you think that chances are extremely
small because of whatever situation, then it may well be better to spend
your money (especially if scarce) on present enjoyment, or even on the
future of your children if you are convinced that their future is in
your interest even after death. These are value judgements which I may
believe are "wrong", but I must respect someone else's right to make
them.
 
> These cryonics choppers fly through TIME not space.  The hospital we fly to
> is in the FUTURE, not Saigon.

But the hospital is at *some* specific time in the future, where
capabilities will always be limited. If later in the future, then yes
there will be fewer limitations but there is all more risk time to get
there and risk of no one wanting to restore the patient.

> My personal view has always been to first decide to get the bodies to that
> future hospital PERIOD.  I personally suspect that when we get to that
> future hospital the doctors there will shake their heads at the beliefs we
> harbored here about what was important.

While I agree with the first sentence, and Mr Smith is certainly
entitled to his opinion, I think that such an opinion as stated in the
second sentence is just wishful pie-in-the-sky thinking, completely
contrary to all past and present scientific, medical and engineering
practical experience. IMO, the current cryonics patients will likely
have many major defecits of mind relating to what they were previously,
and although probably all will be recoverable as clones, some will not
be mentally recognizable at all. 
Once again, I agree that this is no reason not to attempt to get there.

> There is simply too much reliance on present day scientific assumptions in
> my opinion.  These guesses should be viewed as just that - extrapolations
> based on our current limited understanding and assumptions about the future.

I agree that we should not reject anyone who has the money and wishes to
go to the future, whatever the state of their remains, so long as we are
not legally at risk. I have been involved with several such cases where
others around me thought it was "wrong" to proceed, but I did not,
because some chance is better than none and there was full disclosure of
the situation and its "chances".

> Those who claim that this is "waiting for the future to save us" are exactly
> right.  The PRESENT science is entirely incapable of saving anyone who dies
> now (let us say dead for more than 6 hours to rule out the children who
> drown in ice water and recover after about an hour).

Actually, for adults at normothermia the time is something like 6
minutes maximum of lack of blood flow to the brain, by current
extablishment medicine.

> So we cool our bodies
> down to liquid nitrogen levels in the calculated hope that in the FUTURE
> there WILL be ways to reverse all the damages.
> 
> All the rest is supposition in my opinion.

Not entirely. There is currently much additional damage done during the
cooling process. It is supposition in the sense that we do not have
adequate information about what brain structure houses the information
we
want most to have restored. OTOH, as I have described above there will
be
some level of damage/deterioration below which nothing of the individual
mind is restorable, and a large range of damage/deterioration within
which restoration will be only partial.

> So if you are trying to understand what cryonics is all about - DON'T.  You
> can read right here the clashing opinions of people who have spent years
> doing so and obviously THEY don't agree!  If you wait for that degree of
> agreement you may miss the chopper entirely!

These two desires: 1. to understand cryonics and its procedures, and 2.
to be sure not to miss the chopper, are not at all inconsistent or
opposing as Mr Smith appears to be saying. Both can and should be done
at the same time.
 
> (Some of these folks are so certain they are right they refuse to believe
> that ANY of the choppers today CAN reach the future.  They believe they KNOW
> what CAN'T work in the future.

Here Mr Smith has set up a straw man to bash. I don't know of any
cryonics supporter who thinks that way. Giving it a low (but non-zero)
chance of working is *not* the same as *believing* that it *won't* work!

> Think about that!  Please don't base your
> decision for cryonics on those claiming they possess a perfect knowledge of
> the future.

Again, this is a straw man argument re those involved in cryonics. No
one in cryonics is claiming any such thing.

> First arrange to get your OWN body and the bodies of those you love signed
> up for that helicopter ride to a hospital in the future.

Except, once again, unless you think that you can better your overall
long-term chances of an unbounded life, by some other action.
This is the reason why I am not signed up presently, but still plan to
be cryopreserved if/when I should need it. Yes, I am at some risk for
sudden and permanent death. However, I am also at such risk if I am
signed up. In my view, the likelihood of occurence of some in-between
state where being currently signed up would save me, but being not fully
signed up would not save me, is so small, that it is worth taking this
risk. By doing so, I gain the longer-term benefits of having more money
and time to apply to other life-extension activities, and am in a
somewhat better position to get cryonics on a better footing, ultimately
giving my cryopreservation (again if/when ever needed) a better chance.

> Then, if you are so inclined argue yourself blue in the face about which
> procedures may or may not be better for loading the bodies on board the
> chopper.

No "blue in the face" is necessary. A simple objective discussion and
appraisal of the scientific facts is all that I have ever asked for and
what has been sorely lacking by many.

> But if you don't sign up for cryonics medivac because of your beliefs, you
> may be dead right or dead wrong but the important word to attract your
> attention here should be "DEAD".
> 
> Choose life first.  Then argue.
> 
> It's cheaper.

Again, Mr Smith errs in seeing the decision in such stark,
black-and-white
terms. In the reality of life, no decisions are like that.
 
> George Smith
> CI member
> former US Army 10th Med Lab, Pathology, Landstuhl, Germany
> in technical consultation with
> Ruth Smith, RN (retired)
> CI member
> former US Army 2nd General Hospital, Landstuhl, Germany

This list of credentials has no relevance whatever to the opinions which
Mr Smith has stated.

> Message #15534
> From: "George Smith" <>
> References: <>
> Subject: Is cryonics "chancy"?
> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:41:25 -0800
> 
> In Message #15517, Jeff Grimes, he wrote in part:
> 
> "So, I agree that there are differences between cryonics and ordinary
> medicine. Some of the differences are caused by the lack of any agreement on
> how patients should be treated. Some of the differences are due to the
> smallness of cryonics, and its experimental nature. But the real difference
> is that many cryo people, unlike the medical patients I have met, seem
> strangely apathetic and have not asked the obvious questions. Since cryonics
> is MORE experimental and chancy than even a heart bypass operation, I have
> to wonder why people here aren't more concerned."
> 
> You, see, Jeff, you have stated here where I believe the priorities of this
> online disagreement with your postings have ALL come from.
> 
> Cryonics IS "chancy" compared to the alternative, DEATH, which is CERTAIN.
> 
> I think this is factually obvious if you just pause and think about it.

Of course, since all aspects of life are "chancey" - we are constantly
fighting against the forces of nature as expressed in the second law of
thermodynamics (increasing entropy - loss of order/information).
 
> If you are suggesting that you KNOW that present procedures for cryonics
> CAN'T work, (and I truly hope that is not what you think) than this is no
> different than a religious fanatic who pounds on my door and informs me that
> he KNOWS that I am doomed to an eternity in a grinding hell whereas he is
> going to a luscious paradise filled with beauty and love.

Another straw man gets flailed and bashed. No one here is saying such a
thing or ever has. However, there are objective scientific criteria and
results which highly suggest that certain procedures will be "better"
than others, by defining "best" in a limited manner applying to
currently measurable parameters, and reasonably surmising that this
definition of "best" will likely apply to the longer-term recoverability
definition of "best".
 
> You see there are exactly two possibilities about the outcome of any human
> being who is placed into cryonic suspension whether their bodies were found
> after two weeks in the desert and then frozen as is, or they had a team of
> top Medical Researchers begin immediate suspension protocols with the very
> best cutting edge guesses from research as how to best proceed.  I see only
> two possible outcomes.
> 
> The patient lives or not.

This is anti-reality nonsense. Life is not so all-or-nothing. As I have
described before, there will be partial recoveries of
mind/identity/memory/personality attributes ranging from none at all to
100% of all types. At which point restoration of "life" is said to have
taken place or "death" is said to have occurred, I leave to others. In
any case, it will surely depend on which total mind qualities are deemed
to be most important by the individual so evaluating.

> (Now before two hundred postings are filed on my error here, let me be clear
> that MY assumption is that "where there is life there is hope".  If the
> patient is restored with complete amnesia or with physical disfunctions, I
> am ASSUMING that there remains the possibility of fully restored human
> functioning (or better than human) eventually.

But not necessarily the possibility of restoration of the *original*
mode of mind functioning, or the memories associated with the original
mind. Unless you believe in magic, it is possible for things to be
irretrievably lost.

> At that time, physical
> immortality will probably be the norm and as the old song put it), "We have
> all the time in the world..." AFTER that to determine if full repair and
> restoration of faculties is possible in time).

This is another pie-in-the-sky, anti-reality concept. We will always
need to be concerned with the possibility of death. Many of the current
causes may be able to be eliminated, but there will always be some, both
current and new ones, which will need to be carefully and proactively
avoided. This idea reaching "plateau" of life "everlasting" is little
more than the idea of heaven in another guise. It is completely at odds
with all that we have learned from reality. It is the worst kind of
childish thinking.
 
> But the bottom line is you are either DEAD or ALIVE, right?

Nope. As I have described there are partial states relative to your
present individual mind attributes.
 
> This fact does not require an advanced degree in biology to understand.  It
> only requires understanding that cryonics will either work FOR YOU or it
> won't, right?

Saying the same false statement over and over will not make it any more
true.
 
> Now the only PRACTICAL question is what should any rational, life loving
> being do with this information?
> 
> Well you make a decision either by choice or default, but you are moment by
> moment making that decision.
> 
> You either decide to sign up with SOME service (you choose on the basis of
> whatever else seems to make sense to you) for cryonic suspension and THEN
> work on the details to try and "improve" protocols based on best guess
> current experimentation, or you stand in line with most of the other six
> billion lemmings heading directly to the grave.

This is not the only alternative. If the organization and its details
are so bad that they *cannot* be changed then it may be better to remain
outside the organization and work for a longer-run benefit of saving
yourself. I am not with the "lemmings". If I were then I would not
be posting to CryoNet and promoting/leading the INC research. I would
not have founded 21CM (jointly), CryoSpan, CryoCare (jointly) and the
Prometheus Project (which directly led to the INC research and the
presence of a certain scientist at 21CM). Would Mr Smith like to tell us
of his contributions to the field of cryonics besides his posts to
CryoNet?

> I keep beating this drum because it is SO OBVIOUS and too many folks are
> clearly not getting it.

But you are beating the drum to the mostly convinced. Why waste your
time? You should be out beating the drum to the "six billion lemmings".

> You either stay with CERTAIN DEATH or you choose the only current possible
> option which exists - cryonics.
> 
> If you wish to be pessimistic your choice as I see it is between CERTAIN
> DEATH and UNCERTAIN DEATH.
> 
> If you wish to be optimistic your choice as I see it is between CERTAIN
> DEATH and POSSIBLE SURVIVAL.
> 
> There are NO "shades of gray" here.  You're either DEAD or ALIVE.

Again, this is incorrect. There *are* shades of "alive" with respect to
the attributes of mind that you want to have saved.

> So while I read of your efforts to get sufficient detail to justify whether
> or not you agree with the current CI (or ALCOR, I suppose) protocols, what
> happens if you have an embolism, or get hit by a car, or have a heart
> attack?

All of these can be largely avoided by the correct preventative
measures,
and/or the chances will be extremely low until an advanced age is
reached.
If death occurs in such circumstances, depending on the conditions, then
virtual disintegration of the brain may take place before cooling and
cessation of deterioration. Weighing this chance against the chance of
having an effect on the procedures and organizations in cryonics and
thus
bettering one's longer-run overall chances may well be a completely
rational decision.

> I ask you to question your priorities.
> 
> If we attain immortality we can argue about details forever.
> 
> But if you drop dead now, it is 100% over for you.

It is completly unrealistic to see the choice as so black and white.
Reality does not work that way except in dreams.

-- Paul --

The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org
A California charitable corporation funding research to
perfect cryopreservation of central nervous system tissue
for neuroscience research & medical repair of the brain.
Voice-mail: 416-968-6291  Fax: 559-663-5511

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15559