X-Message-Number: 12490 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 19:36:06 -0400 From: Mike Darwin <> Subject: Quick and Easy Response to Smith and Norton >In CryoNet #12478, if I understand correctly, Mike Darwin basically said >that he was NOT optimistic about cryonics, despite the optimism expressed in >the patent description recently being discussed. I have NEVER been optimistic about cryonics. The archives of almost all my public writing are available via Cryonet and CRYONICS magazine. I've always put the overall % chances of success in the single digits. Nothing has changed. >I am truly saddened to understand that. I had hoped that he was at the very >least now going to become optimistic regarding reversible suspended >animation as a future option which would receive support from cryonics >organizations. >I wish he would reconsider. >I would suggest that it is pointless for any researchers into any form of >life extension to denigrate cryonics as it is because NO ONE TRULY KNOWS >WHAT IS GOING TO PROVE POSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE. Denigrating cryonics as an institutional practice and the results it produces as it is currently structured and practiced is very different than denigrating the reasonableness of the action of cryopreserving someone (see quote from my previous post below). The difference, as Ayn Rand would probably say, is the difference between personal acts of charity and institutionalized ones. The latter suffer from lack of feedback as to who is genuinely "deserving" (i.e., likely to exhibit the outcome the donor intended: feeding a hungry child, say, versus buying crack for her mother with taxpayers welfare money). >This isn't an issue of "proving a negative". It is simply an issue of >choosing between something versus nothing. No, it is more complex than that. The person's values and the TOTAL cost of cryonics must be considered. Those total costs include huge (in my experience) hidden emotional, psychological and personal ones for many people. As *trivial* examples: family disruption, lack of closure = continued worry over the status of the cryopreserved loved ones, extreme anxiety and psychoscial cost often expereinced by the *dying* cryopatient as well as his/her relatives and loved ones who now have intense worries about logistics (hospital refuses to cooperate...), money, violent family bickering and alienation of other loved ones, and on and on. For some the price will be worth it all, and more and for others, not. I have no problem with EITHER decision: it is personal, highly personal. *It is, however, part of INFORMED CONSENT* which is not IMHO adequately addressed. Few people have witnessed the down side as well as the upside of cryonics when it actually happens to someone, as I have. By way of example I know of a case where a brother physically assaulted his sister and involved the police over a cryonics case. I know of many broken marriages and disrupted families where, even a decade later, formerly close relatives and friends STILL are in a battle of mutual punishment because a family member chose cryonics. This does NOT make cryonics evil, but it DOES mean that it is not as simple a black or white no-load choice as you make it out to be for everyone. Maybe for you. But, not for everyone. This is an important point. >Cryonics as it is right now is "a reasonable gamble" (to quote Robert Anton >Wilson just this last August). I agree with this statement if your core values relative to the costs are your own life or the life the persons you are trying to save via cryopreservation. >Cryonics is taking a person who dies and saying "let's take a gamble that >someday this condition may be fixable". I agree completely with this statement. >Mike Darwin does not currently believe this gamble is reasonable and that is >his choice. He may change his mind. I hope he does. Optimism is a choice >as is pessimism. Both are a personal estimate in the face of a future that >is unknown. (I can't see where pessimism has any value regardless, but then >again I am usually optimistic by nature). You have no basis for saying this. Pessimism for many = paralysis or inaction.This is not the case for me as I have always been pessimistic about cryonics. I am still "signed-up" and have an Alcor application on somewhere on my desk waiting to be filled out. Admittedly, it is not a burning priority, but it is something I plan to continue as long as the cost remains as it is. In my case, at this time, most of the hidden costs and psycological worries are not an issue. >The research being patented may or may not work to produce (someday) >reversable suspended animation. Very likely the current work is grossly inadequate to produce suspended animation. Much additional work is required. >The writings of those supporting this work seem optimistic about this >potential future technology working. Judge yea each as you will. I've no problem with this. I simply point out that all the optimistic writing in the world is of little value: the proof is in the pudding. >I hope they are right. So do I. I've got a lot of people Iove deeply waiting in LN2 right now. I *really* want to see them again, more than words can tell. >It will save many lives if they are right. Could be. I try to hope that is so. But all changes of this magnitude cause enormous disruption. I cannot discriminate cost vs. bnefit for the masses, only for me (and barely that ;-)). There is often a "bite-back" effect to technological advance. A great book on this is WHY THINGS BITE BACK by Edward Tenner ISBN# 0-679-74756-7. >In the meantime, back here in reality on planet earth, today, here and now, >cryonics remains the only "gamble" available. Agreed. >It is, it seems to me, an issue of choosing between something and nothing. You repeat yourself: see my remarks above. >UNTIL there is something else, there is ONLY cryonics. For those who can understand it, have compatible values, and consider the total price worth paying this is true. I have no argument with this statement qualified as such. >WHEN there MAY be something else, those who die without the benefit of the >new technology of suspended animation will STILL then only have ONE possible >option: cryonics (whether this is due to financial issues or technical >issues). I agree completely. >It seems clear to me that we are discussing apples and oranges here. The >possible development in the future of suspended animation through >vitrification (or whatever else is created) will offer an ALTERNATIVE to >freezing via cryonics. I agree completely here. >If and when that future arrives, the same debate will continue between those >who choose to be pessimistic regarding cryonics and those who choose to be >optimistic. You seem to make the typical Randian and Baptist mistake of seeing everything as ALL GOOD or ALL BAD. Reality is shades of gray. People ultimately make most of their judgements in this zone, with many factors considered. Unarguably without life, no other ongoing values are possible for a person. But not everyne agrees that life (personal survival) is worth any price. That is a position you can agree or disagree with. But, like cryonics, it exists! >It will still remain then as now a question of whether we freeze the person >we cannot place into suspended animation or abandon them. My personal opinion is to respect the wishes of the PERSON. As far as being cryopreserved versus not being cryopreserved when confronted with death, I personally think the former is a better choice than the latter. But many will have reasons sufficient unto themselves to disagree. I have learned to respect those wishes. This does not mean I will not make a reasonable effort to change their minds if it is in my interest to do so. It does mean I will not harrass or browbeat people over their decision. >I believe that something is better than nothing. See above. >If you believe that the chances of cryonics working are zero, this does not >mean that you are right. It only means that you are pessimistic and not >willing to take a gamble that you may be wrong in order to save your own >life or the lives of others. I have not said this, this what I said: "I've accepted the fact that I will in all liklihood die. I am not afraid of that anymore, though obviously, it seems to have little to recommend it, except escape from suffering and uncertainty. Arguably there are BETTER ways of mitigating suffering and uncertainty, or trying to. As long as you are alive you're options are at least open. In the final analysis the act of cryopreserving someone, regardless of how bad off they are, is not an unjustified or irrational one. It is, after all, the only commercially available option open." >If you are feeling frustrated with others who do not agree with your current >20th century beliefs, this does not change the current reality. Agreed completely. >Cryonics exists. Yup. >A few people who die now are being frozen now. Yup. >Others who have already died are already frozen. Yup. >Anyone who dies NOW, TODAY still has NO OTHER OPTION (unless you consider >the grave or crematorium an "option"). Some do. This is their choice. >If you believe that the cryonics option will never work, there are only two >possibilities: >You will someday be proven either right or wrong. >If you are right and cryonics never works, those who died and were frozen >will remain dead. No change. No gain. No loss. >If you are wrong and cryonics someday DOES work, then every person you >persuaded to NOT use cryonics who dies stays dead. Great loss. To my knowledge I have NOT tried to persuade anyone NOT to choose cryonics. Arguably I have persuaded more people to choose it than all but one or two other people on the planet. I am less zealous and dogmatic now than I once was. But I have never questioned the reasonableness of an individual who values his/her life above most, or even above EVERYTHING else, to choose cryonics. That would be both immoral and irrational. >From a strictly moral viewpoint, cryonics MIGHT save human lives. Agreed completely, depending upon whether you believe saving human lives generically is a moral or a good thing to do. I know many people who do not. They come in many varieties. The kind I sup with most often are called animal rights activists. >You CAN'T KNOW that it won't. Never said I did, as this quote from my post makes clear: "Maybe they are right and everything WILL work out OK. I sure as hell can't prove otherwise." >The cost is minimal. For some yes, for others it is astronomical. Cost covers many issues, not just money. I've been there, done that, seen too much. You (George Smith) are IMHO too cavalier about making judgments for others about what is good for them what they can afford, or what the costs are. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think it overzealous and typical of the kind of dogmatism that has caused such grief in cryonics, in religion, in politics and yes, even in science. >The reward is great. Unsupported statement: for you maybe. For many others obviously not: they aren't buying it, George. >Something is better than nothing. Now you're really starting to exhibit the mantra-like cultish pattern that alienates people from cryonics. >Life is better than death. Personally, I agree (for now: its been a pretty good day so far) :-). >I urge everyone reading this to let go of personality issues, to let go of >hubris and at least be honest. That's what I've tried to do. But personality issues and ego will always be there. I'd urge you and others in the "hardline" or "zealot" camp to be more reflective on WHY more people don't choose cryonics. Not just intellectually, but emotionally. It is a complex world full of many kinds of people. Some are willing to die for ideas or their children. Time has taught me that dismissing such positions as insanity is oversimple. Time has also taught me that life can be very painful and that some damage done and decisions made cannot be undone and that there is a price for that which must be factored into the cost of living as surely as paying the rent or the grocery bill. >Cryonics might work. Until there are alternatives to ADD ON (such as >reversible suspended animation or intervention from an extraterrestrial >civilzation or whatever), it is the ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE TODAY. We get the point! >Something is better than nothing. We get the point! >Hedge your bets. Support cryonics or at the very least don't attack it. Attack is your word and your judgement if applied to my statements here. I've given very good reasons for my criticisms of cryonics and offered ways to improve it. I am still working on technology that, if successful, will VASTLY improve the chances of many cryonicists getting better care -- including vastly improving the pool of candidates for vitrification as opposed to freezing. I think this is the BEST support I can give to cryonics right now. That does not mean that I believe everyone should rush out and work on the pathophysiology of ischemia and how to mitigate or prevent it ;-0! I also believe that people should pay for what they get. The people working to improve cryopreservation expect to be payed. My point wasn't they WANT to be sacrificial lambs. Rather, that they deserve an expect o be rewarded for work that is valuable and well done. When a marketplace rejects such labors or ignores them (and this often happens) it is a tragedy. In this case, it is one that should not go unremarked upon and should be pointed out clearly. 21CM has offered public seminars, videotapes at nominal costs, and private and comprehensive briefings to _all_ the leaders of _all_ American cryonics organizations. Bob Ettinger, for instance, has NEVER attended a single technical briefing held by 21CM. 21CM has no incentive to hide its lights under a barrel. One patent has posted already and is available for public scrutiny. Nondisclosure agreements are available to those who wish to discuss the brass tacks of implementing these technologies including costs, hardware, logistics, and so on. This has been the case for sometime. >There is no other option available. Not true: you yourself listed others above. Some also have quietly chosen fixation and refrigeration, in one case it is rumored with the procedure starting before death and under anesthesia. >It also seems to me that supporting cryonics is the only moral option >available if you value human life and acknowledge you are not omniscient. Black or white again, George. The world is a complicated place. >It just might work. Absolutely, far less likely things have happened! >You have nothing to lose ...except your life and the lives of others. See above. >Sounds like you need to make a decision again. My decision is as it has been for a long time. Only my level of zealotry has changed, that's all. End George Smith Comments and Response -------- To Brook Norton: >When you personally attack cryonicists' character, it greatly reduces the >effectiveness of the rest of your message. Presumeably you are posting to >get a message across. IMHO your potentially valuable message will reach >its potential when the personal attacks are deleted. I generally agree with this. But your position, taken to extreme, means that when somebody is doing something damaging and immoral you STILL can't say anything "negative" about them. It is my long and carefully considered opinion (cemented by his behavior at the Alcor Visser demonstration and subsequent actions) that Bob Ettinger is one of the most duplicitous people I have ever encountered. For 30 years I've stood by and said little while I watched him, or others acting in chorot and under his instructions, do tremendous damage to many, many people in this small community. Just because he thought of cryonics and was key to initiating its introduction does not absolve him for responsbility for harm done, lies told, aspersions cast, people hurt or driven out of cryonics (starting with Ev Cooper, the *other* guy who had the cryonics idea), and so on. I've said what I said and I stand by it. Isaac Newton acting in a "professional" capacity gave us untold riches. But he was an SOB who hurt and maliciously injured many innocent people around him, and often damaged or destroyed their productive scientific careers. There is a time to remain silent and a time to speak out. There is that which is seen, and that which is unseen. I've seen both the seen and the unseen. For myself, I am simply unwilling to take anymore of Bob Ettinger's inneuendo and distortion of my positions, actions and statements. Nor am I willing to watch him tear apart others for no moral reason, or facilitate the kind of harm Visser did. Far from being sorry, I am proud of this position, and only regret I didn't say it sooner, louder. Mike Darwin Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12490