X-Message-Number: 29748
Subject: RE: [CN] Timeline
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:18:32 -0400
References: <>
From: "Hare, Tim R" <>

Someone said that, "But don't you understand that realistic timelines
are one of the most
important issues in cryonics?"

A timeline for technology to effect, per se, resuscitation, is exactly
what cryonics *does not* require to be a viable option.  

The requirement is, it is generally argued, that there is something of
adequate/minimum salvage value, to an ill-defined future technology, to
effect resuscitation at some unspecified and completely unimportant
date. 

That is, unless one had plans in advance to, say, meet one's great
grandchildren...and so one is left with the awkward eventuality of
having died before their birth, and likely will see resuscitation after
their deaths.    

The minimum in some arguments doesn't even require anything more than
restoration of sentience, with associated identity, though most seem to
aspire to restoration of their corpse to full working order, plus minus
chest lifts and rear end tucking, depending on how optimistic one's
daydream is.  

If (we assume that) these are the only two options (no no, not the
lifting and separating, the modulators of the date), then that dithers
the resuscitation date quite a bit, as the latter might be argued to
assume some decrement below the salvage level for the nearer term
success of wholesale resuscitation to be viable, and so postpones
resuscitation until some direct information download is possible, etc,
etc.  

The point being that the date can depend on a nearer term-, or a farther
term-technology, but the gamble still seems worthwhile to most despite
the unknown, and possibly quite large, delta in time.

What does matter, arguably, is the integrity of the corpse via
preservation technology used at any given time, if one subscribes to
*any* minimum threshold salvage position beyond aluminum foil and a
basement freezer. 

Time is only important if we have *not* seen the proper cryopreservation
approaches evolve yet.  

So the more interesting debate is:

1) have minimum threshold preservation techniques been met?
2) if not, when?

Historically, #1 has been cautiously agreed to by most enthusiasts.

The rest of us are still nervous enough to instruct that our fingers be
crossed in cryo.  

Personally I want a beer hat and a T-shirt that says "Sportin' wood for
all eternity!".  

I figure a future David Letterman will be so keen on meeting someone
with such a bizarre sense of humor (and such cool artifacts, obviously
worth big bucks on EBAY) that I'll be first out and sipping a cool
Martini in the Green Room, while the rest of y'all are still sucking
nutrition through whatever nano-tech is in vogue for corpsicle
revamping.  Don't worry, don't worry....I'll have my agent call you.  :)

As to Rudi's specific dates for the reentry of Hammy the Hamster, I've
seen paradigm shifts before, and his bet can't be discounted as unfit
for rebuttal, as some would seem to imply.  

As to consensus within the scientific community as a measure of sanity,
look back at past issue of the journal Nature, and see what the
consensus was. They usually have (used to have?) a slot for "50 years
ago today...".  It was longer at one point, I seem to recall, but I
think they're finding the laugh facture applies to more and more recent
opinion, as the technology curve accelerates.  :) 

And, if I may, one final humorous observation (and I'm the brunt of it,
since I take supplements): A fly, on the future wall listens during a
cryo rebirth attempt (uh, don't get nervous, I am suggesting we all get
reincarnated instead of unfrozen, geez!).....

"Damn it all to heck!  He'd have been a perfect resuscitation candidate
if it weren't for all the darn Resveratrol in his system.  Now
glycerol....glycerol I can deal with, but Resveratrol?  Gums up the
Flooogsmometer something terrible. And he's got Blueberry extract out
the wazzooo!  Forget it.  Let's call it a wrap."



Notice:  This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains
information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station,
New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known
outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD
and in Japan, as Banyu - direct contact information for affiliates is 
available at http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be 
confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this 
message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this 
message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then 
delete it from your system.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29748