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