X-Message-Number: 3508 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 94 20:36:16 From: Bridge Steve <> Subject: CRYONICS Neuro vs. Whole Body To CryoNet >From Steve Bridge, Alcor December 18, 1994 In reply to: Message: #3496 - Cloning and Neurosuspension Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:02:19 -0800 From: (Martin R. Olah) >I've read with interest the posts explaining that identical twins, and >therefore clones, are not truly identical. >Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't sound like good news for those >cryonicists signed up for neurosuspension. Is it believed that the brain >will offer enough clues as to hormonal balance, spinal cord conditions, >etc? >Or is this all considered too minor of a concern? Minor enough to forgo a >more conservative whole body suspension? >Thanks for any help answering these questions, > O Martin Martin, questions like these place "neuro vs. whole body" in the top three of all long-term cryonics arguments. We've been debating this at least since the first neurosuspension in 1975 (two years before I became involved in cryonics), and the right answer still isn't clear. I can give you my personal perspective here and others will no doubt do the same. NOTE: Alcor's official position is to give people either option and let them decide. In general, we take the position that neurosuspension is likely to work just as well as whole body suspension (non-cryonicists would say "just as badly."). The other two top cryonics arguments (at least for my purposes here; I recognize that there are many others) are "What organization do I choose?" and "How do I pay for this?" In all three cases, the cryonicist has to weigh a lot of factors. All choices have risks. For example, we don't know which organizations will be in existence 30 years from now, much less which will have done the best job at suspending and caring for patients. Possibly several organizations could be called "the best choice" at any particular time in the next three decades, as personnel, procedures, income, and other factors change from time to time. The key is to decide which organization will be the "right" one *when it is your turn to be suspended.* If you are fairly young now, that makes your choice even harder (although it at least gives you time to play a role in making your group the best over time). Most people do not want to switch back and forth from organization to organization every couple of years as one gains a bit over another. Most people don't even like to change long distance companies each year, and that can be done very simply. The paperwork for signing up with a cryonics company can be fearsomely complex, and you might change your mind again in a couple of years, if things don't work out like you want. So we make our best guess and hope it was right. Deciding on which suspension method to choose can be almost as difficult; but it is easier to switch. IF.... you start with enough funding in the first place. I have chosen neurosuspension, even though I have enough funding for whole-body. The factors I have weighed lead to me to think that: 1. So little is still known about the possible damage being done in preparation and freezing today, and so little is known about the nature of memory and identity, that we really can't tell how well identity is preserved by either suspension method. 2. Patients dying today usually will undergo an immense amount of damage and destruction while they are *still alive*, in the last few weeks of their life. (Possible future choices of suspension before legal death would prevent much of this damage, of course). 3. We are a long way from defeating aging, which does further damage (sometimes severe) to many of the patients even before their terminal illnesses. 4. We know we are a long way from perfect suspended animation. It is very clear that today's suspension procedures do additional damage, probably extensive in many or even most cases. 5. It seems very likely to me that patients frozen by today's methods under today's legal restrictions will incur so much damage to their bodies that even whole body patients may need practically complete replacement of everything except their brains. In fact, it is likely (although the jury is still out on this) that most whole body patients today have cracks in their spinal cords which will require at least repair of connections in the future. From that point of view, today's whole body patients may be the practical equivalent of neuropatients. 6. Given that technical estimate, I believe the worst risks (the ones we have any choice over, at least) facing cryonics patients today have nothing to do with neuropreservation vs. whole body. I think the biggest risks are: a. Will Alcor be able to do or fund the research necessary to FIND OUT whether the information has been saved and to revive the patients someday? b. Will Alcor survive as an organization so the patients stay frozen, no matter what condition they are currently in? c. Will Alcor keep improving as an organization so that later suspensions are better than today? (This is less an individual risk than a shared group risk. If I deanimate today, maybe I can help your suspension be better. But if YOU deanimate today, you can help MY suspension be better. This attitude requires a bit broader definition of self interest than many people use.) 7. The cost of keeping a whole body patient in suspension is approximately 3.5 times greater than the storage cost for a neuropatient. For a neuropatient with $50,000 of insurance, Alcor places between $17,235 and $24,828 (depending on upfront expenses) into the Patient Care Fund. For a whole body patient with $120,000 of insurance, we place between $61,634 and $71,634 into the PCF. 6. So if one can afford $120,000 in life insurance, it seems to me that the wisest course to take *at this time in cryonics history* is to have the funding for whole body but select the neuro option. I would then recommend stipulating in your suspension agreement that the extra funding be divided between: a) extra funding for the Patient Care Fund for security b) research funding c) operating funds If I have the bad luck to need suspending in the next decade or so, this decision helps to protect my brain against the risks in #6. Remember, right now I don't think a whole body suspension necessarily saves much more information than neurosuspension. Being frozen at all and staying frozen is a higher priority. --- To repeat you from the beginning of this message: >Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't sound like good news for those >cryonicists signed up for neurosuspension. Is it believed that the brain >will offer enough clues as to hormonal balance, spinal cord conditions, >etc? Martin, we don't know the answer to this question yet. I think that my IDENTITY is in my brain. If I come back with slightly different fingerprints or physical skills or look a bit different, I can handle that. Most of those things will be fixable eventually by different future techniques, I suspect. And maybe I'll even look *better*, with straighter teeth and nose. But if my brain is preserved, the synaptic links and the underlying brain structure should be the same and I'll be pretty much the good old Steve you all (and I all) know and love. If my memories alone were to be saved in some non-flesh fashion and someone tried to impose them on a brain structure unlike my own, I agree that would only partly be me. (Note I am not saying that if my brain can be completely characterized with 100% fidelity and a new identical brain grown to those specifications, that this would not be me. Well, in fact, I have some emotional problems even with that, but no logical ones. I am saying here that memory probably isn't enough to make me ME.) So my recommendations are: If you can only afford $120,000 in life insurance, select neurosuspension. Have the extra funds go toward keeping your brain frozen and the organization healthy, instead of buying nitrogen for your spleen, bladder, and kneecaps. If you're still 98.6 F in 2004, look at the situation and re- evaluate the risks. If cryonics and Alcor seems accepted and strong and able to survive and progress without your extra $70,000, then you may wish to switch to whole body suspension to take more information into the future. This also assumes that the real costs have not increased much in a decade. You don't want to START giving Alcor risks by selecting a $120,000 whole body suspension when the real costs have, say, doubled. If you can afford $200,000 in insurance today, choose whole body. Have the extra funding allocated as I have suggested above. These are my own personal perspectives on this question and how I made my own decision. You have to evaluate the risks yourself and decide on what should take priority today. You can change your mind later as developments occur. Steve Bridge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3508