X-Message-Number: 9891
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:01:45 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #9849 - #9853

Hi everyone!

To Saul:
I would certainly agree that we should make clear that reanimation
or (better put) revival would have a cost. That cost will probably
vary with the method of suspension used. What I do NOT want to see
is estimates of the cost of revival which after a very little 
thought look dubious at best. For instance, deRivas properly raises
the issue of the cost of appendectomies, and some historical studies
may help us estimate costs much better than if we merely tried to
do so "off the top of our heads". 

However even with historical studies we also need to make our 
assumptions clear. Not all of surgery, or all kinds of surgery,
can be automated, but automation of large parts of an appendectomy
operation may bring down the cost significantly. And taken to a
limit, many cases of suspension will be "standard" enough that 
advanced automation may be applied to do the job completely. Surgery
itself is a make-do caused by our inability to control growth and
development; that inability will someday vanish. (Perhaps we could
do an exercise, individually setting times for these and then
comparing our results, with reasons, and then iterating that 
again until we come to rough agreement --- this is what futurists
sometimes do).

As for time, I actually agree that the risk can increase to an 
individual patient the longer that patient must remain in suspension.
I've tended to be ultimately optimistic: by 3000, I doubt that any
problems with current and prior suspensions will be thought very 
serious. Either trivial solutions will be known, or rock-solid
(ice-solid ;-)) proof will exist that revival is impossible. The
problem is that of lasting the required 1000 years.

However, the problem of revival is NOT solved simply by finding some
means of suspension from which revival is known to be possible. Its
solution really requires that we find a method which is also affordable.
(Yes, the first will probably happen before the second). Working on
this seems to me to be a much more likely way of dealing with costs
than that of simply trying to estimate costs in a setting in which
our estimates, due to assumptions we haven't questioned, turn out to
be WAY out of reality. And besides, it's kind of in the cryonics
tradition: rather than try to estimate the risk of death, try to 
control it in the first place.

To Homesick:
Many cryonicists, I included, have studied gerontology and the prospects
of some means to slow and ultimately reverse aging. While we think that
this will ultimately happen, it's also likely to be far to slow for
almost everyone now living. As an instance, it was clear to me 20 years
ago that aging should receive much more attention than either cancer
or heart disease, because with both kinds of disease the real problem
is that as we grow older our ability to resist either cancer or heart
disease goes down. Most doctors would still not agree, and cancer
research is a good way to build your career if you are a medical or
biotech worker.

It's not that we ignore aging, but that long acquaintance with the field
and its rate of progress makes us decide that cryonics is the only thing
that will save US. And for that matter, you too, if you want to survive.

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9891