X-Message-Number: 4267
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From:  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: The "Future Technology" Panacea
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 04:31:57 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <3n48q3$>

Actually, chemical preservation has been suggested by people in the past,
and proposed as well as a backup no-ongoing-cost plan in case of the failure
of a cryopreservation service running out of money.


There is no need for antagonism.  What people are searching for is not
the cheapest method of preservation, but the best.  Which is to say the
one that seems most likely to work based on today's knowledge.

We do know that things at L-N temperatures stay stable for as long as
we have been able to test them.  That's why people like that method.
It's also not that expensive to maintain, as it turns out.  Much less is
known about the long-term stability of chemical preservation.  There are
risks to it that are known -- any bacteria and you're mush -- but there
are also risks (less understood) to freezing, mainly the cracking.

So it's not so much an belief that future tech can do anything, it
probably can't.  It's an attempt to spend whatever is affordable to
give the least amount of future tech the earliest ability to revive.

Many think freezing is that answer right now, this may change.

You'll also find honest cryonicists will admit that this is a big long
shot.  The Alcor contract, which I have read, is full of reminders of
this.   The chance of success may be very low.   However, if it fails,
the worst that happens is that your heirs are out some money -- and you
were out some money during your life.

It is up to individuals to judge how important these considerations are.
Most of the people I know who have signed up for cryonics have done so
from a very informed standpoint.  They know what they are spending, they
know the chance of failure is high.   So it's no scam, at least not
for these people.

You think freezing causes irreparable damage.  That may be.  You don't
know that, any more than anybody knows that the damage can be repaired.
However, it is *possible* that freezing does not cause irreparable
damage.    It is pretty much certain that decomposition and other traditional
forms of disposition of the corpse cause irreparable damage.

For sombody of my age, the present value cost of $50,000 of life assurance
is about $7,000.   Well within my means.  Not within the means of everybody
of course.    The emergency service fees approximately double that
present value cost.


Frankly, if you can come up with a fairly good chemical preservation
scheme at a much lower cost (say $10,000) you might well get a lot of takers
from those who think the cost of cryo is too high, or the risks not worth
the cost.

Problem is can you do that cost?  You still need a storage facility.  People
will not be tolerant of things like compression which may cause excess damage.
You still need to fight legal battles.   You need the cost of chemical
preservation.  You need absolute sterilization and a perfect seal on your
body bags, and bags that will last centuries or can be safely replaced.
But it could be done.   Ask how many people who did not sign up for cryo
who cite cost as the reason.  If cost is not their reason, they will go
with the best method they feel is available.

I would rather spend more myself, and try to find some way to not go below
the glass transition temperature.  Unfortunately that appears to cost a
great deal more right now.
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.	| www.clari.net
The net's #1 Electronic newspaper (circulation 90,000)		|


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4267