X-Message-Number: 3231
From: Brian Wowk <>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 94 01:36:46 CDT
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Taylor's Questions

Ian Taylor:
 
>Not long ago Brian Wowk joined in a discussion about biostasis and wrote:
 
>>You ask about achieving "damage-free" entry into biostasis.  This is a
>>bit of an oxymoron because human beings (as currently designed) with
>>stopped metabolism are inherently damaged, and have no way of
>>spontaneously regaining function.  I assume you are really asking when
>>will we have a technique that we are certain is reversible with future
>>technology.
 
> No. I am really asking when will we have a technique that can put a human 
> being into biostasis without causing damage. 
 
        The answer is never, if by "human being" you mean someone who
is built like you and me today.
 
> For example, a computer goes into "cyberstasis" if the power fails.
> Modern computers shutdown the hardware without damage and save the current
> state of the system into nonvolatile RAM in the last few milliseconds as
> the power dies away. At this point the computer is dead and not very
> useful, although a lot quieter :) 
 
        A century from now it may be possible to redesign human beings so
that this is possible (and I agree it would be a good thing).  Before
this, though, we will learn to perform biostasis with some degree of
reversible damage.  This is probably fifty years away.
 
>>In fact, we are probably less than 5 years and a million dollars or so away
>>from achieving full functional recovery of *entire brains* from -130'C
>>using vitrification only.
 
> Incredible! That should be enough for a Nobel prize.
 
        If the world was a decent, life-valuing place, Robert Ettinger
would have won the Nobel prize in medicine 20 years ago.  
Unfortunately the world is not such a place, and cryonicsts (small 
number that we are) are the only people in the world who value this 
technology.  It will not win a Nobel prize.  In fact it will not 
garner much public attention at all, other than perhaps the howling 
complaints of medical ethicists.  Even the scientists who are most 
qualified and enthusiastic to perform this research are currently 
unable to do it for lack of money.  Granting agencies are much more
interested in preserving hearts, kidneys, and livers than brains.
 
        The very idea of preserving brains to save people lives is 
horrifying to the neuroscience community.  Think about it.  Not
only do these people need a continuing supply of brains to slice up 
for their research, but they would be forced to confront the 
possibility that for years they have been killing people everyday.          
I suspect that the neuroscience community, with supreme irony, will be 
the last branch of medical science to embrace cryonics.
 
 
>> Damage mechanisms in any of the above procedures are multi-
>> dimensional and cannot be characterized by a single number.
 
> How many dimensions do you use? Has anyone quantified resulting
> damage?
 
        How many dimensions can one use to quantify damage to a 
wrecked automobile?  The only way I know of to quantify damage to 
physical objects is in terms of the resources needed to fix them.
You may find Ralph Merkle's writings on this subject illuminating.
 
                                        --- Brian Wowk

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3231