X-Message-Number: 10408
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:19:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Just two comments

In Message #10397 from: Thomas Donaldson, he said:
>Not only that, but we now have people in storage who were frozen by
>past methods, going all the way back to Bedford. It is morally 
>and (probably) factually incumbent on us to work out, someday, a means
>to either revive them or prove conclusively that they cannot be
>revived by any future technology. 

For reasons which will probably surface over time as the current crop of 
dogmatic "scientists" 

die out and make room for new dogmas which may better approach the true nature 
of things, I have 

made it clear that any member of MY family who might physically die are to have 
any and all 

remains preserved indefinitely - even if it be only a single DNA strand.  It is 
the height of 

primate hubris to presume what future science will someday be able to 
accomplish.  Thomas 

Donaldson's ethical imperative to not murder someone because we stupidly assume 
we "know" they 

are a "lost cause" is the heart and core of all arguments against those who 
promote death over 
life.  Good work, sir!

And in Message #10394 from: Jan Coetzee, it was stated that:

>> Electron micrograms are artifacts that may reflect the technicians experience
>> preparing tissue for the instrument. Until different very competent persons
>> have repeated the preparation of frozen brain tissue one would not know

>> whether the damage is due to freezing or the preparation of the tissue for 
>> microscope.

In the three years I assisted in autopsies and prepared tissue for pathological 
review, I 

learned that no two pathologists tended to agree on what they saw in the 
microscope when the 

opinion given would be important (to their professional peer standing, not 
important to the 

patient).  I discovered that concentration of the fixatives, the duration of 
exposure, the 

temperature, not to mention the simple issue of how varied was the honing of the
microtome knife 

used to slice samples, the manual speed of the actual slicing, and (for all 
anyone truly knew) 

the phase of the moon at the time, produced incredible differences in what 
eventually could be 
"seen" under the scope.

Reminds me of high school chemistry labs where, for the rigorously honest, the 
"experiments" in 

the lab seemed to disprove the very issues they were intended to prove.  You 
didn't get an 

"A" by pointing this out to the chem teacher.  After high school, it only got 
worse... but let's 

not discuss the issue of whether the saint's statues cry real tears.  As "modern
scientists" we 

must not only accept all current agreed-upon current models of reality 
determined according to 

committee (whether in Nicea or Geneva, 3rd centry AD or 20th century AD) but 
make hubristic 
predictions of the future based on those interpolations.  

But if you want to get to the North Pole, it usually is wisest to not walk 
South.  If you play 

ping pong with one eye covered, this can make for incredible laughter as you 
miss the obvious.  

If you wish to win the game, take off the blinders.  The future is yet here.  
Predictions made 

by scientists of the future possilbities in their own fields are notoriously, 
humorously and 

consistently wrong.  If you want to see something documented 100% just check out
the LAST 

century's predictions from the scientists who were alive and "respected" back 

Research is necessary and inevitable (with enough money = enough interest = more
members = more 

focus on positive expectations = less shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot 
pessimism)).  Researchers 

are notoriouly poor at seeing the future.  Don't buy stocks on hot tips from 
scientists.  Don't 

buy pessimistic futures based on hot tips from scientists.  Wait for the 

"Science progesses, funeral by funeral."

"Wadda ya mean, this is heresy?!  It's ALCHEMY!" - little known lost quote from 
Isaac Newton on 
being asked about his views of the new physics.

-George Smith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10408