X-Message-Number: 10408 From: 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 the >> 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 THEN. 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 engineers! "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