X-Message-Number: 797
Subject: CRYONICS: Whole Body vs. Neuro Suspension
Date: Sun, 3 May 92 18:24:50 PDT
From: Eli Brandt <>

> From: ghsvax! (Hal Finney)

> At best, DNA would allow the construction of a body which was as
> similar to yours as twin baby's bodies are.  (And probably that ideal

Hal makes a good point: our genotype is not a blueprint of our phenotype,
but a procedural description whose product is environmentally influenced.
However, I think most people would be satisfied with a working body
reasonably similar to theirs; I would actually prefer something different
but functionally superior.

> The DNA program only tells how to make a heart by starting from an
> ovum in a womb.  It doesn't tell how to grow one out of a neck.

This is not entirely true.  Regeneration by adult organisms is well
documented.  The canonical example is the starfish, but the phenomenon
occurs to lesser degrees in more convincingly relevant animals -- such
as frogs, I believe.  However, regeneration becomes less effective as
we look at more "advanced" organisms: many plants are routinely
reproduced from far less than the equivalent of a head, but amphibians
can regenerate only smaller parts, and humans can't regenerate much
more than a toenail.  This may be due to fundamental differences in
developmental processes between amphibians and mammals, though this
seems implausible offhand.  Regeneration technology would obviously
have applications beyond cryonic reanimation, as well.  The important
point is that DNA can direct development from other starting points
than a zygote.  Whether this can actually be applied is another matter.

Otherwise, I agree.

> Hal Finney
> ghsvax!			...!uunet!ghsvax!hal

   Eli   

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=797