X-Message-Number: 8756
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #8746 - #8750
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:29:19 -0800 (PST)

Hi again!

To Charles Platt:
The very first point I will make in reply to your posting is that you
misread me badly about 5 minutes of ischemia. I was saying that this was the
belief at one time. I was certainly not saying it was true; in fact, its
falsity was important to the argument I was making. It (the 5 minute limit)
was once held as an Axiom by all concerned, and no one proposed to test or
improve on such axioms. Now, however, we see that this Axiom turned out to
be false. (Much as I am glad that 21st Century Medicine has managed revivals
after 15 minutes, I'll add that their work was built on at least 20 years
of other work, which included such revivals, though not so consistently).

It seems to be held as an Axiom by both you and Saul Kent that fully 
reversible suspended animation would cause a big upsurge in recruitment. I
do not take it as an Axiom at all. I don't even see it as obvious, mainly
because I think that the current state of cryonics technology is NOT the
major obstacle to public acceptance. (You may refer to my answer to Saul
Kent in a previous recent posting for more details). 

I do not claim to know the future. However, it seems to me that if you believe
that perfected suspended animation would greatly increase membership, then
please explain why. Ultimately we'll find out: I too support the goal of
suspended animation, it's only that I do not support it because I think we'll
suddenly grow far more rapidly when we have it.

For that matter, I was not "quibbling" when I raised my objections. Even if
we can have suspended animation for healthy animals, those we put into 
suspension for cryonics purposes will be far from healthy. (And your statement
that CRYONIC SUSPENSION KILLS seems to be a complete misstatement of 
what cryonics is about: so far, those suspended are already "dead", whatever
that may mean). As emergency medicine, we will find ourselves doing our best
on patients who may even have deanimated --- the same as now. Even a little
thought suggests that very few people with good health will want cryonic
suspension, even if it is reversible. And just because our patients will NOT
be in good health, they're likely to "die" in the course of our procedure
anyway. It seems to me that these are points which work against a big 
increase in membership.

Not only that, but for anyone suspended for medical reasons (I assume that
even if someone in good health asks for suspension, the society from which he
or she requests it will think long and hard about whether to provide it) there
is still a basic uncertainty. No doubt their disease will be considered, at the
stage at which they want suspension, to be Axiomatically incurable. If they
actually believe such an axiom then they have no reason to be suspended. As
seen by such a person, the only thing suspended animation might give them is
the privelege of dying of their condition not now but (say) 100 years in the
future... a dubious privelege indeed, especially since they must pay for it.

And this issue gets worse, at least in terms of your opinion of what's
needed for recruiting. A disbelief in one medical Axiom very easily slides 
over into disbelief in others, such as the issue of when someone is "dead"
and the importance of damage during cryosuspension.

Please reread what I said to you, and read my reply to Saul. If I am to 
change my opinion (prior to actual development of suspended animation, which
will give an empirical test to both our opinions) then I would want reasons,
not simply the statement of your opinion. As it stands, I simply do not 
believe that a disbelief in whether or not the cryonic suspension will
work is a major influence in keeping people away from cryonics.

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8756