X-Message-Number: 12002
From: "Peter C. McCluskey" <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:05:27 -0700
Subject: Why Cryonics Isn't Popular (Maybe)
References: <>

>Message #11993
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:10:00 -0700
>From: Robin Hanson <>
>On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 Saul Kent wrote:
>>        I don't agree.  If we had evidence of the
>>effectiveness of cryonics technology, we would have 
>>a basis for assuming that cryonics patients could be
>>restored to life in the relatively near future, which 
>>might be less "alien" and "scarry" to people.
>Even if we had completely effective cryonics today,
>it could still be a century before we know how to 
>cure most of the conditions which now cause cryonics 
>patients to "die."  That seems long enough to be alien. 

 That sounds like a good explanation of why cryonics sounds alien to
many people, but I don't agree that a century is a realistic forecast.
I'd guess that the vast majority of heart problems and cancers will
be curable in something like 15 to 30 years.
 I also see reasons to suspect that uploading frozen brains will be
possible in 20 to 40 years (although it will take more than just a
good timetable to make this sound unalien).

 You have strongly reinforced my gut feeling that arguing that suspendees
might be revived soon is an important part of selling cryonics.
Peter McCluskey          | Critmail (http://crit.org/critmail.html):
http://www.rahul.net/pcm | Accept nothing less to archive your mailing list

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12002