X-Message-Number: 12012 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: about nanotechnology (of any kind) and revival Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:59:20 +1000 (EST) Hi everyone! Contrary to what some cryonicists (who incidentally have PhDs and a good deal of scientific experience) may claim, I believe it is quite wrong to believe that current work on nanotechnology will BY ITSELF produce means for the kind of long term storage needed for cryonics. It should not escape anyone who reads about current uses of nanotechnology that one very prominent aim is that of finding a way to make our computers smaller. This is a worthy aim, but has no direct relationship to cryonics. Even that form of nanotechnology which is now called biotechnology has generally failed to confront the problem of reviving someone frozen by current methods. Instead we have lots of possible ways to cure genetic faults inherited from our parents, or far more complex kinds of vaccination to deal with diseases ordinary vaccinations cannot touch. Even the work by noncryonicists to find ways to revive people after longer and longer periods without oxygen does not now involve in any way special nanotechnology. It simply tries to work out what really happens and then treats that. Not only that, but it will clearly not be enough to simply have the ability to build many very small machines. The problem is that of knowing just what must be DONE with these very small machines: and it is on this problem, the critical problem for cryonics, that the only people who fund such research are cryonicists. If we consider the problem of reviving those who are now already in suspension this problem stands out: who else would study the effects of freezing with the many different methods now used over time to preserve cryonics patients than cryonicists? And without understanding the effects of such methods in far greater detail than we now do, our ability to revive such patients remains -- 0 ---. Among other reasons, this is a major reason why the research that Saul Kent is supporting deserves support --- no matter what your opinion about nanotechnology in any form. Even if we can only make the destruction due to freezing less in 5 years than it is now, we have helped work on the problem of revival... regardless of the methods someday used for revival. Without understanding of the damage, it simply won't be possible to use ANY technology to revive people. And getting such understanding requires us to confront the kinds of injury which occur --- not theoretically, but experimentally. I am optimistic that this can be done, or I would not have posted this message. But those who believe we need not work on this end of the problem of revival are quite wrong, and so far as anyone argues against the need for such research their opinions become closer to a religion than to a technology. Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12012