X-Message-Number: 9073 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:14:25 -0500 From: "John P. Pietrzak" <> Subject: Re: Cryonics societies (#9068) References: <> Steve Bridge wrote: > John Pietrzak wrote: > >Just my opinion, pardon the vitriol. > > No vitriol, John. You haven't been on this list long enough to > appreciate true vitriol. This was just strong opinion, actually > fairly calm for a cryonicist. Hmm, I've heard rumors. (Perhaps I should tread a bit more carefully in this list...) > >Well, let me tell you, from what I can see, the odds of any modern > >day cryonaut thawing out successfully (at any time in the future) > >are pretty darn bad. > > Practically speaking, the odds are almost totally unknown. They might > be terrible; they might be pretty good. We don't know. That's a much > larger problem, in my opinion. If we were *sure* the odds were > extremely bad, more people might be contributing and working more to > move ahead. Unfortunately, too many people have the vague feeling > that "it's not too bad now, and it will get better soon" so they don't > help push it along themselves. Yeah, it's this combination of science and faith that I'm starting to really get tired of. The odds are unknown: what that means to me is that, if I'm really interested in this process, I should be working my buns off at least getting a handle on the odds. For starters, I can be certain that _today_, the process is incomplete. Nobody thawed out today would survive. I can also be certain that, given the current pace of technology, it is definitely not going to work before the end of the year, or even before the end of the next decade. The tools (nanomachines?), computing technology, medical and biochemical knowledge is not where it needs to be. How long until it is where it needs to be? Well, we can be certain that practically nobody in academia is working directly on cryonics. Even people who *want* to work on it are afraid to do so. Unless this changes, it may be the case that even when all the basic science is in place, nobody will ever apply it to cryonics. This is, to put it mildly, a problem. > The problem there is that people are dying NOW with no alternative. Yes. And I'm not sure what I can say; unfortunately, the field of cryonics is still very undeveloped, and I just don't know whether current techniques are sufficient. But I personally don't feel any real security about modern cryopreservation myself. It's just not a good _enough_ alternative yet. > In addition, while it sometimes seems like putting the cart before the > horse, do you think that Saul Kent and Bill Faloon (not to mention > other significant financial contributors) would be putting all of this > money into cryonics if they were not themselves signed up and > committed? Probably not. Yes, this is a problem! Cryonics is not something that the population at large takes seriously. Foremost in my mind is in fact that it relies all too heavily on faith: it certainly is a nonreversible process today, and the studies which have been done rely mainly on speculative scientific advances. This makes it seem more like a cult than anything else. Efforts to raise public awareness may help some, but removal of this reliance on faith would be the best thing that could happen to cryonics, in my opinion. > >I would like to see whether we can't put together a society dedicated > >solely to the task of getting people out of cryonic storage. > > Several of us have thought that such a group would be important > someday. The hardest workers among us, however, already had so much > to do, that it always seemed like something that would have to wait. > > We're so glad that you volunteered. <semi-grin> > > Seriously, maybe something will come of your suggestion. I hope you > don't run away as fast as you can from being part of the leadership of > such a group (that might be the *sane* response; but not the most > "useful" one). This might be a good time for more people to become > involved in cryonics activism and leadership again. There appears to > be a new, if cautious, spirit of cooperation arising again, and most > experienced cryonicists appear to be trying to be more or less polite > in public dealings. (Paul Wakfer might not feel that way after his > past three weeks; but most cryonics leaders have been subjected to > much worse over the past ten years -- often by each other.) You certainly make such a position sound enticing. ;) At any rate, I'm quite willing to work with such a group with that sort of goal to what extent I can. But one person does not a society make; I was hoping that a few more people might poke their opinions into the discussion on the future of Prometheus, as to whether support exists for a continued FLLS-like group, or whether it should just fade away. John Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9073