X-Message-Number: 2720
Subject: CRYONICS: The role of Nanotechnology
From:  (Ben Best)
Date: 	Tue, 3 May 1994 01:00:00 -0400


   Paul Wakfer (founding Director of the current incarnation of
CryoSpan) was in Toronto, Canada this week, and I found myself
arguing with him over the value of nanotechnology. The tenor of his
argument is reminiscent of things I have heard from Thomas Donaldson
and Mike Darwin. The discussion crystallized some thoughts that I
believe should be posted to CryoNet.

   Paul expressed the view that the concept of nanotechnology does
damage to the cryonics movement. He went so far as to say that the
nanotech idea may even have done more harm than good. When I raised
the issue of the importance of repair capabilities, he countered that
biotechnology may well do the job. And he went so far as to say that
what is valuable about nanotechnology will come about inevitably from
scientists other than K. Eric Drexler and Ralph Merkle.

   In my opinion, these arguments are more the product of psychological
reaction than of a balanced view of reality. Paul, Thomas and Mike are
struggling intensely to garner resources from the cryonics community to
further cryonics research. The objective of this research is to
minimize or eliminate brain damage due to ischemia and freezing --
ideally to the point of true suspended animation. Nanotech enthusiasts,
it is asserted, contribute nothing to this effort because they blithely
believe that nanotechnology will repair any and all damage.
Nanotechnology thus becomes demonized -- and becomes the target of blame
for the fact that cryonicists will not contribute more for cryonics
research.

    It is undoubtedly true that a brain that has been completely
dissolved in a vat of strong acid is destroyed beyond the repair
capabilities of nanotechnology. Similarly, the brain of an unembalmed
corpse that has spent ten days at room temperature is probably pretty
liquified by autolysis. The damage due to an hour of ischemia is harder
to assess -- as is the effect of freezing damage. Can the damage be
repaired by future technology, or has the biological basis of mind
been destroyed beyond the capabilities of all future repair? How can we
answer this question when we do not know the structural basis of
memory, identity or consciousness? The most conservative approach is
to minimize, if not eliminate, structural damage. Cryobiologist Greg
Fahy has said that he thinks this is within his capabilities.

    But what about repair? If anti-nanotech people really think that
future repair is impossible, then they should refer to the current
"members in suspension" as "corpses" rather than "patients", and cease
practicing cryonics until structural damage to the brain, neurons and
synapses has been eliminated. They should repeat Arthur Rowe's mantra
that reanimating a frozen corpse is about as likely as turning a
hamburger back into a cow. For every cryonicist who believes with
certainty that nanotechnology can repair currently frozen suspension
members, there are thousands of scientists who think otherwise. Even
cryobiologist Pierre Boutron (who has devoted his life to cryoprotectant
research so as to achieve the suspended animation he believes can lead
to greatly extended lifespan) thinks that the current chances of repair
are too unlikely to justify the costs of cryonics. I cannot count the
number of people who have told me that they will not take cryonics
seriously until a mammal is frozen and reanimated. The truth is, nearly
every practicing cryonicist I know-of believes that repair is possible
-- and it would not make much sense for them to be current cryonicists
if they did not believe this.

    And if repair is possible, why demonize nanotechnology? If
biotechnology can do the repair, then some smug cryonicists could have
"faith" in future biotechnology and not worry about current damage. Take
Drexler and Merkle out of the picture and some smug cryonicists can have
faith in anti-Drexler nanotechnologists to repair all possible damage.
I think we are very lucky that Ralph Merkle boldly lends his scientific
credentials to the cause of cryonics -- even to the point of publishing
a paper on the subject in a scientific journal. I think we are immensely
fortunate that Drexler has written such a positive chapter on cryonics
in ENGINES OF CREATION -- and that he is rising to such eminence with
the inevitable progress of technology on smaller scales. We are
especially lucky considering that the vast majority of people (including
scientists in other fields) look to eminent scientists for credibility
of certain ideas. This is of immense benefit for cryonics.

   I am an extremist by nature, but in this case I reject both the
assumption that future science can repair all possible damage and the
opposite assumption that repair is impossible. But the bottom line is:
the less damage is done, the better chance there is that future (repair)
technology can bring us back. To me there is both an urgency to research
and an urgency to practicing cryonics with our current limited
capabilities. Both the quasi-religious Nanotechnology devotee and the
total anti-nanotech skeptic would have to reject at least one of these
urgencies.

                  -- Ben Best (ben.best%)

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2720