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