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