X-Message-Number: 10564 Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 10:29:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Brief Responses to More Wishful Thinking > From: > Disrupted structures can be repaired by an advanced > nanotechnology. That is not only my opinion, but also the opinion of > scientists in the relevant areas (medicine, cryobiology, molecular biology, > and nanotechnology). Where my life is at stake, I prefer experimental evidence to "opinions." Also I doubt you can find more than five or six cryobiologists who put much faith in nanotechnology; this may be myopic on their part, but is also a manifestation of traditional scientific caution. Until cell structures actually have been repaired, we are dealing with (possibly well informed) speculation. Also, you make no distinction between severe disruption and slight damage. I would find your categorical statements a little easier to believe if anyone had done a feasibility study using existing macro-scale robots to repair a macro-scale simulation of freezing damage. This is a very reasonable request, since the predicted onboard computing power of nanobots is more modest that the computing power of current desktop systems. But no one has a clue how to "train" macro-scale robots to repair macro-scale damage. Indeed I believe roboticists would tell you that it is impossible using this level of processing power. > Only very few writers see the freezing damage as a > reason not to make cryonics arrangements. True, few people have written, publicly, "I'm not going to sign up because of the freezing damage." Why should they bother to publish such a statement--and where would they publish it? You have no way of knowing how many people have made a private decision to avoid cryonics because of the damage it causes using current techniques. > It should also be noted that > Cryonics Institute can offer protected freezing in Europe and that Alcor > (which will hold a training course at its UK facility in November) will soon > also be able to offer protected freezing in Europe. It should also be noted that while I admire the UK people, who are smart and motivated, they have never dealt with a single cryonics case. > Furthermore, is Eugen Leitl actually in Rancho Cucamonga, CA? When I last saw Eugen, he was in the general vicinity of Rancho Cucamonga, where he has better access to state-of-the-art cryonics research than at any other facility in the world. If he's concerned, maybe you should take him serioustly. -------------------- > From: Jeff Davis <> > If, having some notion of the scope of modern science, and having studied > cryonics, I come to the conclusion that success is a near certainty, and on > that basis I promise/guarantee resuscitation, I am not lying, I am not > being dishonest, I am not defrauding, I am making a good faith committment. If, having some notion of the scope of modern science, I come to the conclusion that a cure for cancer is a near certainty, and on that basis I promise/guarantee such a cure, and I start accepting money from terminal patients even though I am not a qualified scientist and I have no clue how a cancer cure really will be implemented, then this is a clear case of fraud--no different from the scenario you outline. Anyone who "guarantees" the success of cryonics is misleading the public. This is why the signup documents of any cryonics organization emphasize that we guarantee nothing. I strongly urge you to read those documents. They were developed over the years because we have an ethical obligation to tell the truth and a legal imperative to avoid being sued by angry relatives. > At worst I am engaging in an act of--to use one of Ed Regis's favorite > words--hubris. A promise or guarantee, by its very nature, looks to the > future, and the future is, by its nature, indeterminate. Sure. But if you promise something which you don't know how to deliver, the law may not deal with you sympathetically. > The crucial point is _good faith_. No, the crucial point is whether you can provide the service that you are guaranteeing. > It is one thing to promise, when you know you won't, or believe you can't, > carry it off. It's an entirely different matter when you commit in good > faith and believe in good faith that you CAN carry it off. Again, this is not legally valid. You are indulging in a favorite activity of cryonicists: developing your own theories on the assumption that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Good luck if you ever try to apply your ideas in practice--although I doubt that this is likely. > promisees--are all in a state of, by definition, permanent frozen > indifference, so where's the harm? And, if there is none, then--as the old > saying goes: No harm, no foul. The harm is that you took their money under false pretenses. > The alternative is a kind of ethical purity that hobbles cryonics, and is, > in fact, little more than vanity. Yes, ethical purity hobbles your version of cryonics, no doubt about that! However, the ethics which you find a tiresome impediment are, to me, indispensable. If we don't run an ethical business, I don't want to be a part of it. I certainly don't want to offer false hope to dying people. Nor do I want to run an organization that risks being sued. All of your arguments sound as if you are making them from a small amount of theory, and no practical experience. I urge you to get more involved as a hands-on volunteer. Deal with the fear of dying people, and the distress and ambivalence of people who love them. Read up on the Chatsworth case, where a cryonics organization made the kind of promises you're talking about. The practice of cryonics is not remotely as simple as your theoretical version of it. --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10564