X-Message-Number: 3162
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 94 01:39:31 CDT
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Old sci.med debate

Jan (John) Coetzee:
 
>>>In article <> Gordon Banks writes:
>>>> There is a good chance that within a century or so we will have the 
>>>> capabilities of engineering germ cell lines to the point that almost 
>>>> any characteristic could be programmed into the individual.  It is here 
>>>> that the most likely promise of "immortality" lies, not in cryonics.  
>>>> By the time the technology to revive these frozen fossils is in place 
>>>> (if ever), those who would be doing the reviving may look upon the 
>>>> frozen specimens as genetically hopeless and have no desire to resurrect
>>>> such poor specimens.
>>>
 
(material deleted)
 
Robert Bradbury(?):
 
>>From where I stand (a moderatly well informed programmer/biologist)
>>I would guess freezing organs by 2000 and the 1 billion transistor chip
>>by 2005.  The cloning of an individual may not be until 2030+ and the
>>ability to realize brain transplants/nanotechnology 2050-2100(?).
>>This makes me think that the current "flaw" in the whole cryonics
>>preservation game is that of preserving only the quiescent heads.
>>These non-talking heads :) will have to wait much longer for reanimation
>>than those who go the whole body route.
 
>I came across this discussion on WWW. I would appreciate users opinion 
>on it. Jan (John) Coetzee.
 
        I remember the great sci.med cryonics debate of 1992 well.  As 
I recall, it was precipitated by the vote to form either 
sci.med.cryonics or sci.cryonics.  Gordon Banks was a complete 
a**hole, incapable of focussed discussion.
 
        The particular response you quoted is interesting.  I agree 
completely with the last paragraph, with the exception of the last 
thought.  The technology to grow whole bodies from scratch is a 
technology already demonstrated in nature (in a mother's womb).  The 
genetic manipulations that would be required to grow a new body around 
an isolated brain in vitro are trivial compared to the task of 
repairing the freezing injury itself.
 
        In other words, by the time we can repair the devastating 
freezing injuries produced by today's preservation procedures, 
regenerating new bodies will be an excercise in home first aid.  
Today's whole body patients will not be revived any sooner than 
today's neuropatients.  On the other hand, if and when brain 
cryopreservation is perfected, we may see a situation where 
neuropatients will be revived *before* whole body patients of their 
same era.
 
        The decision of whether to go whole body or neuro with today's 
technology is not a question of how soon you will be revived, but 
probably more of a question of whether you will be revived at all.  In 
my opinion, going neuro gives you a better a chance of going the 
distance because each storage dollar is ten times more effective for a 
neuropatient than a whole body patient.  The price you pay is loss of 
spinally-recorded motor skills, like walking and possibly typing and 
playing musical instruments.  Neuropatients will probably have to 
relearn these things.  A small price to pay for reaching the 22nd 
century, in my judgment and my limited budget.
 
        Of course, all this will change when whole-body preservation 
is perfected.  But that is many decades away.
 
        By the way, how on Earth did you find this ancient debate?  Is 
there a text-searchable Internet archive of Usenet postings two years 
old somewhere?  
 
                                                --- Brian Wowk           

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3162