X-Message-Number: 11696
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 19:46:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mike Darwin's Message #11685

Mike Darwin sounded extremely frustrated in his recent posting.

If I understand correctly, Mike Darwin believes he found (some years ago) a 
superior way to reduce damage before suspension.

He implies that he can't get any cryonics organizations to use it.


He doesn't say.

I will assume there must be a reason.

Wonder what it is?

Wish he'd just make a quick post to name the reason.

In the meantime, I have to admit to some skepticism.

NO cryonics organization will use his "better" method?

NO one?

Makes me wonder why.  

(And, no, I really DON'T know why.  And, no, I do NOT know Mike Darwin 

My own experience has been that in the real world trade-offs between cost 
and procedures, the people in charge of current cryonics organizations seem 
incredibly rational and practical.  

In fact, compared to what I commonly find OUTSIDE cryonics orgainzations, I 
have found these people to be very open-minded!

They certainly don't strike me as being stupid.

So there must be another agenda, I assume.

To Mike Darwin:

Mike, is it that you have a fundamental disagreement with others regarding 
the mission of cryonics?  This would certainly explain why you are not 
getting your views accepted if you don't share the same goals to achieve the 
same mission as others.  For example, if your solution is so expensive only 
multi-millionaires can afford it, I can see where there might be some foot-

I view cryonics along a hierarchy of preferences extending from:
(1) being able to afford a future reversible suspended animation technique, 
(2) the best-available immediate preparation at death to minimize damage, 
(3) getting some degree of perfusion after death before freezing, 
(4) a simple straight freeze without anything but temperature reduction, 
(5) clone my DNA.  (Yes.  I mean it).

I view cryonics as life INSURANCE ONLY at this point and simply contend that 
ANYTHING is better than nothing.

It is a calculated gamble on a projected future technology.  It might work.  
It might not.  I think it is a gamble worth taking.

Heck, I even cringe when they discover lost mountain climbers who were 
frozen and then bring them down off the ice for a "decent burial".  I shake 
my head and wonder what if they had just left them there for another fifty 
or one-hundred or more years?  Could they have been reanimated?

We just can't prove it might not happen.

That's how I see the cryonics gamble.

I do not believe I KNOW everything which will be possible in the future.

I am certain that not one of the cryonics organizations has a leader who 
believes THEY know everything about the future either.

So why is it you can't get even ONE of them to agree with you if you are on 
to something so right and so critical?

I read your entire post, Mike.  

I remain confused regarding it.

What are you really saying, Mike?  

And to whom?


George Smith
CI member

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11696