X-Message-Number: 9888
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:33:49 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Cost And Time Or Reanimation

        Thomas Donaldson (9881) again argues that 
the longer we wait to reanimate a patient, the lower  
the costs of reanimation are likely to be.

        I agree, but wish to point out again that the 
longer we wait to reanimate a patient, the greater the 
risk of that patient being taken *out* of suspension
as well.  In cryonics, time is risk.

        I don't believe that concern about having 
enough money for reanimation costs should stop 
anyone from signing up for cryonics.  However, the 
knowledge that it's possible to keep a patient frozen 
for thousands of years shouldn't be used to discourage 
efforts to define and pay for the costs of reanimation.

        I'm not content with a *chance* at an extended
lifespan.  I want the best possible chance I can get.  That
means, I will be doing everything I can to improve cryonics
methods, gain greater credibility for cryonics, help to build
larger, stronger cryonics companies, fund anti-aging
research, and try to stay alive and active as long 
as I can.

        I still have hope (although it is slim) that advances
in anti-aging research will make cryonics unnecessary for me.
My main hope, however, is that, by improving cryonics today,
and by providing as much money as I can for my reanimation, 
I can improve my chances of being cryopreserved in the best
possible way, minimize the burden on the future to reanimate
me, and improve my chances of being revived successfully
as soon as possible.

        If I am successful in these efforts, than *I* will be 
around in the future to do everything I can to push forward 
the research needed to attempt to reanimate my mother 
and friends (and others) who were cryopreserved with 
more primitive methods. In my opinion, the best chance 
for patients frozen poorly, who may require a century or 
two to be revived, will come from the efforts of survivors 
from the era in which they were frozen, rather than the 
efforts of members of unborn future generations.

        In short, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on
*anyone* but ourselves for our own survival.  That's why 
I'm concerned about the lack of young activists in the 
cryonics movement, and that's why I urge every living 
cryonicist to do as much as possible to improve our 
chances of survival right now!  The more we do ourselves 
*for* ourselves, the greater our chances of living in good 
health for centuries!

---Saul Kent, CEO
21st Century Medicine

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9888