X-Message-Number: 7413
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #7404 - #7411
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:48:06 -0800 (PST)

Hi again!

To Mr. Merel: You come up once more with an old saw, one requiring just a 
little thought to see its problems. Yes, the US has used a high proportion of
current Earth's resources, for the very good reason that it bought them while
no one else did. Furthermore, no mining or farming company will see any sense
at all in searching for new resources of any kind unless there are people
and organizations available to pay them for doing so. Consequence: the tally
of "world resources" has somehow increased just ahead of our current use.
That is hardly a surprize.

Yes, the planet Earth does have finite resources, though no one now has any
good idea of how large they may be. Not only is there the issue I describe in
the previous paragraph, but even in mining many ores which would not have
been thought minable 100 years ago are now being mined --- because our
ability to do so has increased. And as the need for such minerals increases,
I would expect an increased interest in reusing them. And most finally, it
is quite inappropriate to talk only of the resources of the planet Earth,
whatever they may be. Here we are, building space stations and thinking 
about expeditions to Mars, and some people refuse to consider any resources
which do not come from Earth itself. Sure, it may be appropriate to think
about just how easily we might acquire those resources, and even to argue
that they won't arrive in time --- but I've never seen such an argument. It
is always the limits of the EARTH, the EARTH'S limits, etc etc. Frankly I
think that just as with the current situation, when we really do come close
to the finite limits of the Earth, then we'll see efforts to get them from
elsewhere... not that anyone anywhere has any good idea what the limits of 
the Earth may be. (And note: unlike Earth's resources, the trip down costs
a whole lot less than the trip up!).

Incidentally, at one point, to work out the future, I did do some thinking.
Rather than just use resources of any kind, I looked only at waste heat,
the one thermodynamic limit. If we increase our energy use at the highest
rate of increase we've yet shown, then we'll start to cause problems on
the Earth about 100 years from now. (I note that the rate of increase has
been significantly less than that). Does that tell us anything? Well, it
tells us we'll want to put lots of energy industries upstairs. That's fine.
It will be interesting to see that happen, though it will probably take
more than 100 years, the lowest estimate.

As for other damage to the Earth, I note an interesting observation of the
physicist Trefil, in the December 1996 issue of the Smithsonian. It seems
he was present when the experiments using iron to enrich ocean water (as
a means of making enough phytoplankton to clear away extra CO2) were 
described, and the experimenters told how they didn't work. And Trefil 
noted all the "environmental scientists" and "environmentalists" present
breathing a sigh of relief. Trefil wasn't saying that a solution had been
found, he was saying that a possible road to a solution had been found,
and such things require much more work to make them real --- including
careful assessment of their other environmental effects. Many others in that
audience acted as if they deeply desired this solution to fail... 

Deciding only to look down, and grovelling in the mud, will serve neither
human welfare nor any hopes of immortality. 

On damage prior to suspension:

While I am very surprized at Mike's statistic about autopsy (where did he
get it?) I'm not at all surprized by many of his other statistics. Right
now Hara Ra, of Alcor, is busily working on a generation one device to
help cryonicists (particularly those living alone) call for help. He has
plans to take this device much further in future.

At the same time, these statistics point up one major area of research
that only cryonicists would be interested it. In practise, that area may 
well be every bit as important as finding a way to preserve brains without
damage. That area consists of the study of what really happens, in detail,
to brains in the clinical situation of cryonics patients. Without any
knowledge of whatever destruction may occur, we will totally lack good
ideas for what we can do about it. And yes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
Diseases do destroy neurons in their later stages: we don't just have to
worry about multiple strokes and brain tumors. But it would be nice to
really have clinical data about the condition of the brains of cryonics
patients before their suspension. Perhaps dogs or even mice might be
used (we'd need to find a way to do "mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on mice!)
to imitate what happens, and then we might examine their brains in the
detail needed.

			Long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7413