X-Message-Number: 10720
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 07:05:10 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #10714 - #10717

Hi everyone!

I see that the guns debate still continues. I personally think it is
an important issue, but not one for Cryonet. And for those who feel
the need to discuss it on Cryonet, I would strongly suggest that they
do their homework first of all ie. read up on the various studies of
gun frequency and its relation to crime. Not even every European 
country has low gun frequency: Switzerland has lots of guns, with 
almost every male Swiss citizen in their military reserve. Lott's
book should be read, if only to be able to provide a coherent argument
against its thesis... and so on.

As for Saul Kent's idea that few people are joining because most people
simply don't think it will work, I will say (poor statistical sample
that I am) that I have personally met several people who happily agreed
that it probably WOULD work, but still refused to even learn more about
cryonics. This makes me doubt that Saul is correct. But ultimately 
once the pudding is made, we'll all get to see how many eat it.

And yes, I too agree that nanotechnology is important for cryonics.
Biotechnology, as a form of nanotechnology, will almost certainly play
a big role, along with its attendant science, biochemistry. Not only that,
but it will even play a big role in vitrification, the method Saul Kent
and Greg Fahy favor most.

As for Bob Ettinger's idea that the technology for revival will come
"automatically", I'll have to disagree. Yes, a lot of the background
technology needed will come automatically, but it will be cryonicists 
who do the studies and experiments which ultimately lead to revival,
not those who have no interest in that issue. 

So we need much more research. But I repeat myself.

			Best and long long life for all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10720