X-Message-Number: 18985
From: 
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 06:48:49 EDT
Subject: The end of all disease?

Responses from Grigg and Ettinger to the effect that all diseases will be 
curable fail to consider the broad nature of disease. Perhaps the best way 
for people on this list to understand the nature of disease is to think of 
disease like you think of computer viruses. In the final analysis all living 
things are information systems. They rely on instructions or programs of 
varying complexity to optimally survive and reproduce. Similarly, all disease 
is rooted in disruption of the organism's structure (e.g., elaborated program 
information) or programming. Interference with programming ultimately results 
in disruption of structure and thus function. If this occurs in a sentient 
entity we call it disease because we don't like it. In fact, the word 
"dis-ease" says exactly what it means. 

There are three broad classes of disease:

1) Injury (disruption) from application of exogenous force in excess of the 
engineering tolerances of the system (organism).

2) Endogenous failures due to design limitations, oversights in engineering, 
unanticipated design flaws, and so on.

3) Exogenous failures due to invasion of the system with alien information in 
the form of simple programs such as viruses, (both computer and human 
versions are good examples) or complex program-operated structures like 
bacteria and other invasive parasites.

All three of the above failure modes are hard to imagine eliminating in the 
foreseeable future. To do so implies both omniscience and omnipotence.

Without complete knowledge of the Universe it is not possible for any 
structure and information dependent organism (regardless of the substrate) to 
anticipate all possible situations where tremendous disruptive external 
forces might be brought to bear. We may be very tough, redundant and 
resilient creatures in the future, but there is always the unknown and always 
the possibility that we will encounter by chance or by design forces large 
enough to destroy us. Accidents happen, and so do homicides. The sling may 
have been augmented by the 9 mm Glock and the hydrogen bomb, but the 
principle remains the same. 

The problem of viruses or other invasive information-driven instrumentalities 
is perhaps even more odious. As long as there are multiple, survival-driven 
intelligences with limited resources, and limited insight, there will be 
conflicts over those resources. If every man on earth had the energy and 
resources of the entire solar system as a personal asset there would still be 
trouble. Even with our current tiny intelligences it is not difficult to 
imagine scenarios where having all those resources might be deemed essential 
to a given individual's or group of individuals' survival. Our desires always 
overreach our available resources. Only by gaining complete control over the 
Universe can survival be assured. Since that doesn't seem to be in the cards 
now, there will always be competition. As I was taught in Business Law in 
High School, the basis of economics is that human desire is infinite and 
available resources finite. Satisfy any list of wishes and more will arise. 
Conflict and competition as well as cooperation and conciliation are core 
elements of information beings.

Finally, as human beings transform themselves and begin taking a direct, 
design oriented approach to their evolution they will be confronted with many 
possible strategies and be driven by many preexisting desires and 
inclinations. Intense social interaction is fundamental to the identity of 
some humans, and intense isolation and independence is fundamental to the 
identity of others. Radically different structural and cognitive paths to 
survival and choices of lifestyle will be likely when the option becomes 
available. Indeed, this divergence is already magnified in wealthy societies 
(both now and in the past) and becomes more extreme as resources and 
technology allow. Look around you at the variety of values and lifestyles 
already in existence and note how much more differentiated they have become 
even since 1950! These divergences reflect deep evolutionary principles: 
individual organisms within a species must have differences in order to 
protect the species. And yes, this even applies to so called unicellular 
organisms which are incorrectly labeled as genetically and phenotypically 
identical.

Some people will make bad choices. Some will make very bad choices. In fact, 
it is possible to imagine that their choices will be so bad that they may not 
only cause the deanimation of the individual or group, but they may be 
extremely dangerous to others trying to "resuscitate" them (Jonestown is a 
crude example). Think of such bad choices as extremely malignant and complex 
masses of code (programming) which may ensnare would be rescuers. Anyone who 
knows much about how clever malignant ideologies or computer viruses can be 
should get the picture.

In such a situation it may be that the only thing to do is to place the 
"patient" in isolated stasis until the problem can be sorted out. In other 
cases it may simply be that a problem of enormous complexity has been created 
(perhaps by accident) which requires time to sort out, or even time for 
technology to advance to the point where sorting it out becomes possible. How 
to separate the individual from a destructive or function terminating 
implementation of self without destroying the individual in the process may 
be a very difficult and complicated problem.

So, I believe Thomas Donaldson is correct and that the need for "cryonics" as 
core principle in medicine is not likely to be obviated in any foreseeable 
future. As our capability for progress, growth and increased flexibility 
grows, so too will the chances for fatal errors. While it may be possible to 
minimize the chances of adverse events as a result of technological advance, 
it will not be possible by any means I know of to reduce them to zero. The 
same is true for acts of malice. Malice here can be both a neutral term and 
one attributed to sadistic intent. It *is* possible for reasonable beings 
(using the scientific method) to arrive at very different and equally 
plausible theories about how to solve life or death problems. Some of those 
theories may be in conflict and may be resolved only by the use of force or 
fraud which result in lethal injury. We currently label these kinds of 
conflicts crimes or wars. Some crimes become acts of heroism and some wars 
are labeled just. It is sometimes hard to know which is which at the time 
because available information is insufficient and yet action on that 
information is imperative in order to survive.

As the computer on Stark Trek used to say "Insufficient data for a meaningful 
answer."

As it is, so shall it be in the foreseeable future. We are not immortal, 
imperishable, omniscient, or omnipotent. And nowhere do I see evidence that 
we now living are likely to become so soon.

So, we do the best we can. Sometimes we screw up. This is what the idea of 
Original Sin is all about: the realization that the Universe imposes moral 
handicaps which seem (and perhaps are) inescapable. Still, we try for 
perfection, and the deep idea of cryonics is part of our progress towards 
that end.

Mike Darwin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18985