X-Message-Number: 8260 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: Re: CryoNet #8243 - #8247 Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 20:41:52 -0700 (PDT) For Joao Pedro: First of all, cryonics is not simply a matter of futuristic hoping. Real people are doing it. Yes, we know very well that our current methods for cryonic suspension (of which freezing takes a large part, but we also replace a patient's blood with chemicals which should help decrease the damage before we freeze them) will cause lots of damage. The critical point here is that we do not do it to people in the prime of life and able to live for many years afterwards. We do it only to people who would otherwise simply decay and die --- or if cremation is used, be totally destroyed. This changes the picture a lot: you are not choosing between a life in the future and a life now, you are choosing between a guaranteed death (total oblivion) and a possible life in the future. Since we all know that we someday will be in such a situation, we have all made preparations for it well in advance. One other point: if you look at cryonics more deeply you will learn that in order to be suspended you must first be declared dead. One major difference between cryonicists and all other states and societies is that we have a different (and we think much better) definition of death. You are dead if all the information required to restore you to life has been destroyed. That is very much not the same as the other kinds of criteria: you need not be breathing, your heart need not be beating, etc etc. Some noncryonicists say that we freeze "dead people". That's not what we try to do: we try to freeze LIVE people, though our notion of when someone is dead differs from that of others. Why is our definition better? Because it is more universal. The definition of "dead" has constantly changed as our abilities to bring people back to life increased. First there was artificial respiration. Then we learned how to restart someone's heart. Now there is intensive research on repairing and reviving people after the so-called 5 minute limit. As a matter of fact, with the best technology and people who know about the latest methods, someone can often be brought back now after 15 minutes. This all means that the criteria change. But underlying all such criteria, even centuries in the future, is the idea that what we need (ie. information) to revive someone is gone. That is why we think our criterion is better. Finally, you ask about the present state of cryobiology. Dim, dank, and miserable. To be more precise, so far only a very few organs with special characteristics can be frozen and brought back to function. Most cryobiologists do not want cryonics to succeed, and it has affected their success elsewhere. I would, however, be at fault if I did not also tell you that there are cryonicists who are also cryobiologists, and cryonics societies have begun to commit money to research, with the immediate aim of finding a way to suspend and revive BRAINS. There is movement going on right now, headed by Paul Wakfer (he will probably put a message on cryonet, so you'll learn more about this if you're patient) which aims to raise $1 million a year, with the aim of funding the research we need. His email address is Other cryonics societies are also interested in funding research, though Paul's effort is aimed at all cryonicists worldwide regardless of their cryonics society. Best wishes for your exploration of cryonics, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8260