X-Message-Number: 2786
Subject: CRYONICS: Nanotechnology, yet again
From:  (Ben Best)
Date: 	Sun, 29 May 1994 03:58:00 -0400


      I felt that the Nanotechnology debate had been productive and
had ended amicably, despite misunderstandings and anger, which I
acknowledged were in large part due to my failure to fully explain
myself. Considering that the debate had ended with goodwill and a
high correlation of opinion, I was sorry to see Thomas Donaldson's
posting, charged with anti-Ben Best blaming. There would be no
point in (b/f)laming back, but I think I can take this opportunity
to sum-up the essential issues.

     As scientifically knowledgeable cryonicists we know that people
frozen by current methods cannot simply be "defrosted" in the future.
Perfusion by cryoprotectant into brain tissue is imperfect and freezing
damage has occurred. People have died of fatal diseases and are often
afflicted with the ravages of aging, ischemia and separation of the head
from the body. It makes no sense of practice cryonics at present without
believing that molecular repair is possible. Conversely, it is foolhardy
imagine that molecular repair is as omnipotent as a deity, and that
damage by current methods can be ignored. Demonstrably reducing or
eliminating damage to structure and to physiology will increase the
probability of future reanimation and will put cryonics on a more
credible footing with the scientific community.

     This leaves us with two marketing issues which often run at
cross-purposes:

     (1) To non-cryonicists we must market the idea that molecular
         repair is possible. There are far too many reputable scientists
         who have no knowledge or conception of the possibility of
         molecular repair. Scientists who believe that cryonics is a
         futile pursuit that will not be worthwhile until complete
         suspended animation of mammals is accomplished must be
         taught that there is another alternative.

     (2) To cryonicists we must market the idea that molecular repair
         may not be sufficient to accomplish future reanimation. We
         must stress the importance of eliminating ischemic injury and
         freezing damage. We must stress that only cryonicists can be
         expected to provide the needed resources for research to reduce
         or eliminate damage -- and that it is urgent to contribute
         to research.

     In attempting to both shake scientists out of their fatalism and
shake cryonicists out of their complacency we may appear to be
hypocrites, but we are not. We are working to make a plausible
possibility of success into a much greater probability of success.

     I believe that the above formulation of the issues is probably
acceptable to all of the participants of the "Nanotechnology debate".
I regret any ill will that may have resulted from the way I chose to
express myself.

               -- Ben Best (ben.best%)

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2786