X-Message-Number: 9787
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:05:36 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #9779 - #9785

To Mike Darwin:

I attended (and I think you did) the lecture by Peter Safar at the 
A4M meeting. At that lecture he very clearly talked about 10 minutes.
I'm sure he's done much more in his lab, but he was talking to a 
different audience interested in what could be done with PEOPLE. I will
add that I personally feel glad for the extra details about his work
you have put up on Cryonet with your message. You do not actually
contradict what I said, which was very brief.

Since you are right in the middle of such research, and I am not,
I cannot be surprised that you know lots more about it than I. I will
contact you separately about nondisclosure agreements, though I will
add that I'm most interested in things that I CAN disclose. (Remember,
I'm acting as a medical reporter here --- though as a cryonicist I
would still like to know what is going on).

In any case, I believe my basic point --- that we can revive people
now after significantly more than 5 minutes, still stands. I'm also
happy that you're communicating with Safar --- even if your aims are
ultimately different, I'm sure that you can help one another. 

I will add that you would be unlikely to be interested in any article
I wrote on revival after ischemia because you were deep in the middle
of that subject. Perhaps, though, some of what I say on other subjects
may still be of interest. And remember that PERIASTRON cannot devote
an entire issue to one subject, it must always condense and summarize
heavily. (Otherwise it would quickly lose subscribers!).


To Tom Mazanec:
I've explained why I became a cryonicist several times on this forum,
so I apologize for repetition to others. 

The main point, which all those people you list simply didn't catch
on to, is that cryonics does not have to be proven to work in order to
be the correct choice IF YOU ARE DYING. If you are dying, then your
choices are very limited indeed: you can choose to be buried, and so
totally destroyed; you can choose to be cremated, and so totally 
destroyed; you might choose other methods in other cultures, all of 
which mean that you will be totally destroyed. OR you can choose 
cryonic suspension, as uncertain as it may be. Certainly, no one can
promise that you will be revived, but at least a precondition for
revival will be there: you will NOT have been totally destroyed.

Moreover, it would take great hubris to believe that the problem of
revival, just because it seems impossible to doctors today, will not
be solvable given the long times available. Not only that, but if you
look into cryonics a bit more you will find discussions of just the
kind of things that would be needed for revival --- not as things 
we have now, but as devices and ideas which we can develop over many
years. No, that does not prove that you will be revived, but to wait
for such proof when your real choice lies between total destruction
and possible survival is idiotic, and remains idiotic even if you
have a Nobel prize and an IQ of 300. 

Not only that, but right now cryonicists are trying to improve their
methods (as they have been, on very low budgets, ever since cryonics
began --- modulo various internal struggles, I will admit). In such
a situation to stand by and complain that present methods don't 
"work" (whatever that may mean, given the choices available) does not
seem logical. Either stop your complaining or contribute to the 
research, which is badly needed.

When you say that you give money toward nanotechnology just why do 
you do so? So that you can have ever smaller computers? I will point
out, as I have already, that without neuroscience too, nanotechnology
will do nothing for us. Not only that, but a bit of study of cryobiology
will tell you about vitrification and the serious possibility that 
we could reversibly preserve brains by vitrification --- after lots of
research and money, but hardly as much even as a Tokamak. Of course,
if you're simply not interested in living, then why not say so and d
we can end this discussion.

As for why so many have not joined, I will say this. I personally have
spoken to "intelligent" people who have no problems believing that 
repair and revival of someone suspended today will someday become
possible --- but they still refuse to join a cryonics society. There
probably are people who simply believe that it won't work, so strongly
that they have at once ceased to think about it. But very few people
are willing to think about cryonics because they are thinking about
their own death. And there is a real kicker behind cryonics, which
makes it especially hard. Suppose that we DO revive someone and cure
them of their illness. That tells nothing about whether or not we
can ever cure YOU of YOUR illness: and so, in that situation, if you
choose cryonics, you will know that you can be revived, sure, but 
only to the same dying condition you had when you were suspended. All
else is quite unknown. That sounds to me like a really great choice;
and I doubt that any single revival, or even a train of them, will
at once cause lots of people to join. Cryonics by definition is the
storage of people until their disease or condition, totally incurable
at the time of their storage, can someday be cured. To ask first 
that the disease be curable is to miss the point entirely; and so it
is now with "death", too.

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9787