X-Message-Number: 18578
From: 
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:58:38 EST
Subject: cheap preservation

--part1_15e.8f0d6c8.29a12d2e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Message #18576
From: 

>I do have another question...  does anyone have a suggestion for simple 
>chemical or cryopreservation of brains? 

There have been many discussions of alternative and simpler/cheaper 
preservation methods. The common theme is that, if we can preserve structure 
(even though distorted), then function can be restored (by sufficiently 
advanced technology). 

We don't know enough about the details of the relation of (the various kinds 
of ) structure to (the various kinds of) function. By analogy, scenarios can 
be written to support either side.

The simplest analogy for a structuralist argument might be a new car with a 
broken ignition wire. It is 100% "dead" in the sense that it won't run at 
all. Yet only a minor repair is needed to restore it to brand new 100% life.

Another simple structuralist analogy is this. Suppose a car is very old and 
broken down and half rusted out, but still (barely) running. It is "alive" 
but still maybe 90%  dead. Again, structure looks more important than 
function.

Eric Drexler and others have taken structuralist positions. If the important 
elements of structure remain, or even remain inferrable, then future 
restoration is possible in principle.

The problems with the structuralist approach are twofold. First, we just 
don't know enough about the anatomy and physiology of the brain to be sure 
which structures are needed for the self circuit or for memory, among others. 
Therefore we don't know how difficult restoration would be after a particular 
preservation procedure.

The funtionalist approach also has advantages and weaknesses. The main 
advantage is that, if function is (apparently) 100% restored, then we are 
probably confident of success. But 100% survival of function will not be 
known until a human patient has been revived and passed a lot of exams.

The problem with functionalist approaches in the lab is that there are many 
kinds and criteria of function. Organisms, organs, tissues, cells, 
organelles, all have their own functions, and usually each function can be 
measured in several ways which may give differing results.

On the organism level, vital functions such as heartbeat and respiration may 
have failed, yet such people have often been revived. On the organelle level, 
membrane ion transport may have been degraded but mitochondria activity 
continued, or vice versa. Still further, the same function may have more than 
one marker, which may differ in their results.

From a psychological and public relations viewpoint, function is more 
important than structure. Embalming (of the right kind), or drying, or 
freezing at a relatively high temperature, might arguably preserve a great 
deal of structure, but hardly anybody would buy it at present, except for 
purely aesthetic or sentimental reasons. 

Cryogenic freezing (or vitrification) has had many partial successes in 
preserving both structure and function, which makes it the only focus to date 
of our efforts. The CI research agenda does include the morphology focus, but 
not as a high priority.

Dr. Yuri Pichugin's work at CI at present is aimed mainly at improvements in 
procedure which will demonstrate gains in functionality after rewarming, 
gains measured by several chemical criteria and by electrophysiology, 
analogous to the EEG. We also look at histology or structure through 
microscopy.

A troubling question remains, which Mike has alluded to. What if cheap 
preservation does indeed preserve structure well enough so that future tech 
could restore the patient? Do we have a moral or social duty to offer it?

Our implicit answer so far has been negative. But such alternatives do not 
need the cryonics organizations. Mausoleums already contain many desiccated 
bodies; they usually dry them fairly quickly with a stream of air. Cemeteries 
or mausoleums could also, if demand were there, use freeze-drying or enhanced 
embalming, or freezing at relatively high temperatures.

No, that doesn't entirely get the onus off us. We are relatively well 
positioned to evaluate the results of improved methods of chemical fixation 
or of freeze-drying, for example. But it would probably be better for 
separate organizations or companies to aim at this market. They would not 
have to offer or even mention any possibility of revival--just preservation 
of appearances. There might be a big market for that.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
www.cryonics.org


--part1_15e.8f0d6c8.29a12d2e_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18578