X-Message-Number: 9072
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:09:48 -0500
From: "John P. Pietrzak" <>
Subject: Re: probability of revival (#9066)
References: <>

Robert Ettinger wrote:
> I just want briefly to comment on his opinion--and opinion of
> opinions--that the probability of rescue of current patients is
> extremely low, maybe one in millions.
> Looking only at the probability of eventual adequate future technology 
> (not considering general or local catastrophes etc.), the people who
> make pessimistic "estimates" are in fact not estimating at all--just
> dressing up their pessimistic impressions or guesses with meaningless
> numbers.

Well, but that's my problem: looking only at the probability of eventual
adequate future technology, the future is really quite rosy.  That's
pretty much what everybody on this list has been doing.  Reality
unfortunately involves more than just pure technology.  There is the
issue of time (How _long_ until sufficient technology appears?  Can we
afford to wait that long?), and even when a technology does appear, it
may not be used (Consider the current backlash against human cloning,
or the fact that there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in
the US in decades).

Moreover, science itself isn't a monolithic structure chugging ahead
on a fixed path at a fixed rate.  Scientists are actually people; they
work on the tasks they want to work on, believe what they want to
believe.  They are affected by economics and politics, faith and peer
pressure.  One of the things the Prometheus effort has taught me is
just how much those things affect modern academia: even people who
_want_ to work on cryonics-related research are afraid to do so.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that yes, a sufficiently advanced science
will be able to do what you want.  But it would behoove you to push
science in the direction you want it to advance.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9072