X-Message-Number: 9655
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 15:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Summation of Research Argument

On Fri, 8 May 1998, Thomas Donaldson wrote:

> cryonics has "failed" (whatever that may mean) then why should we
> promote it at all? 

Cryonics has failed in that it has not attracted the large number of 
signups that has been predicted since the 1960s, and it has failed in 
that progress toward reversible suspended animation has been painfully 
slow. Surely this is clear, and has been made clear on this news group?

I believe we should be frank about the deficiencies of our product, and
devote our primary energies toward improving it, for ethical and practical
reasons. If people want to sign up in the meantime, fully informed about
the limitations of cryonics, obviously they are at liberty to do so. 
Doesn't this seem a reasonable approach?

> For that matter, if it really has "failed", why
> should we bother to keep those now in suspension in suspension?

We have an ethical, financial, and contractual commitment to do so. Also,
no one here has stated that it will be impossible to revive any cryonics
patient. (Where do you get these ideas, Thomas?) Rather, several people
including myself have suggested that revival may be problematic in many
cases. 

> have NO scientific proof. How can we prove such a thing is 
> impossible? The very most we can do is to say that WE do not
> know how to revive them.

As I have stated here before, there is a continuum of possible damage, 
ranging from one slightly injured neuron to a totally scrambled brain 
reduced to liquid state by autolysis. I believe almost everyone will 
agree that the one slightly injured neuron will be reparable via 
nanotechnology at some time in the future, and I believe everyone can 
also agree that nanotechnology will not be capable of restoring life in a 
"brain through a blender" situation.

Therefore, arguments about the feasibility of cryonics boil down to
endless debate about where the feasible/infeasible line lies on the
spectrum of damage. Such arguments are unproductive, because they cannot
be resolved conclusively. What is obvious, however, is that anything we
can do to reduce damage, thus moving ourselves to the benign end of the
spectrum, is a very good idea. It should help us personally, and should
help us to promote cryonics. The faster we can achieve this, the better 
off we will be.

> WE must learn both patience and a sense of our limits, and
> come to understand that there are universes within universes that
> we do NOT understand.

Okay, but are you going to bet your life on this, Thomas? I suggest to
also that people who feel patient, contented, and philosophical are not
usually the ones who achieve radical advances in science and technology. 

In our own little field, the people who have achieved the most in terms of
technical advances AND membership growth are definitely the most abrasive,
impatient personalities. Since this has been true in the past, I assume 
it will continue to be true in the future.

> And finally I must point out, not just for Saul but for everyone,
> that it would be the worst decision of all to decide on the basis
> of the scanty knowledge we now have, and will have, that because
> the brains of previous patients seem irretrievably messed up, 
> that they should be thawed out and abandoned. No, I am not saying
> that you have said that directly,

Please tell me, Thomas, where ANYONE has stated this even INDIRECTLY. I
believe this is entirely your idea. 

-----

To summarize:

There are two schools of thought. One is basically optimistic, suggesting
that current preservation techniques are necessary and sufficient, and we
will benefit most by promoting cryonics as it exists currently. This
approach has produced meager results in the past 30 years, despite huge
amounts of publicity that would be the envy of most businesses.

The other school might be termed the alarmists. They are alarmed by the
degree of damage seen in micrographs and believe that until we can offer
substantial reductions in this damage--ideally, ZERO damage--it is
premature to devote our primary energy to marketing the product. When we
have a better product, people will be more likely to buy it. This seems
very clear to me, so I place myself in this camp. 

In addition, Saul has noted that the traditional "business model" of 
cryonics (which of course isn't a business at all) relies on volunteers; 
and many of these volunteers are growing old and getting tired of 
donating their time. To sustain cryonics in the future we will need a 
steady supply of new talent, which may be best obtained by showing that 
we are serious about offering a better product.

Therefore, when deciding how to spend time and money, our best option is 
to develop a better product.

In any radically new technology (I have provided several examples; there
are many more) you find only diehard nonconformists expressing strong
interest while the product is still in the R&D phase. Uneducated consumers
may believe that the product will work (as has been pointed out here
several times), but they won't USE the product until it enters the
mainstream of life. Why? This is a question of buying psychology that can
be debated endlessly. The debate is unnecessary, since experience shows
that people simply behave this way. 

When the product gets as far as a working prototype, you find early
adopters expressing interest. Technical validation is provided from a
variety of respected sources, news media promote the concept, and
gradually the more adventurous consumers start taking it seriously.
Finally, two or three decades later, the product or service loses its
"wacky" or "experimental" stigma and enters everyday life. 

I don't know of any radical innovation that has done an end-run around 
this adoption process. I invite anyone to name an exception, AND to 
explain how cryonics can follow a similar path. Until such an explanation 
is forthcoming, I am convinced that cryonics must follow the same process 
of validation as other innovations in the past.

It's much easier to sell a product that works than a product that cannot 
be proved to work and must rely on repairs which some unknown, unnamed 
persons in the future may or may not be willing and able to provide, 
assuming the patients stay frozen long enough.

Surely this is self-evident?

--Charles Platt
CryoCare

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9655