X-Message-Number: 1767
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 21:52:54 PST
From: ghsvax! (Hal Finney)
Subject: CRYONICS: Resistance to reversible suspension?

If it became possible to develop a protocol for reversible suspension,
most people would agree that this would be a great boon.  Maybe some
chemical cocktail could be developed which will protect the body from
damage so that freezing and thawing can be done while allowing the
person to live.

With the great powers that nanotechnology is expected to bring, this
capability will presumably become possible eventually.  But I am
wondering whether it might be possible even before nanotech.  Maybe
five or ten years of research into how some animals can survive
freezing will produce breakthroughs that allow this kind of
suspension.  This won't require intelligent robots or engineered
lymphocytes to go through the body and make cell-by-cell repairs;
rather, simple bulk technology similar to what we have today would
suffice.

As I said, I think this would obviously be a great boon.  At last,
cryonics companies would have a real product they could sell.  Much of
the skepticism about this service would disappear.  And, most
importantly, we cryonics clients could have much higher hopes of
successfully surviving a suspension.

But I have seen some comments which are less enthusiastic about this
possibility.  It may simply be a matter of a technical judgement that
achieving reversible suspension without nanotechnology is simply
impossible.  If so, I can't argue with that.

But I am worried that there are other judgements entering as well.
One consideration is that such a breakthrough probably would not help
patients currently in suspension, people who did not have the benefits
of the new suspension technology.  Perhaps it seems somehow unfair for
those suspended later to have the benefits of reversible suspension
while earlier suspendees presumably have to wait for nanotech.

Also, a breakthrough like this might actually be harmful to current
suspension patients.  Maybe there will be less reason in the future to
do the research to figure out how to thaw them because there will only
be this handful of people frozen the old-fashioned, unreversible way.

I say, this may be true but it doesn't matter: the benefits still far
outweigh these disadvantages.  We can't let sentimentality or loyalty
to suspendees get in the way of embracing any future technology for
workable cryonic suspension.

Perhaps I am wrong to think that anyone would disagree, but I can't
help noticing that many people active in Alcor have relatives in
suspension.  I'm worried that subconcious loyalties to suspended
parents may make it feel like betrayal to switch to a protocol which
offers benefits to new suspendees that are useless to the older ones.

Another reason why I could see people not embracing a new reversible
suspension technology is the issue of neurosuspension.  While I can
imagine that it is at least conceivable that some non-toxic
"antifreeze" might allow us to be frozen and revived in a few years,
it is beyond my powers of belief to see this being done to a
neurosuspension patient.  Cutting off the body and throwing it away
will surely require the kind of active repair typical of nanotech.
This problem seems wholly different in magnitude from allowing
reversible freezing.

Alcor is, according to recent statements here, largely a
neurosuspension organization.  I am worried that it might be
politically difficult to work towards reversible freezing protocols
which will be useless to the majority of members.  The emphasis on
neurosuspension might therefore slow progress towards reversible
freezing.

As I said, it is possible that no one will advocate the position I'm
arguing against, and that everyone will agree that reversible freezing
will be a virtually unmixed blessing.  But if not, I think it would be
good to discuss the issue openly.

Hal Finney


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1767