X-Message-Number: 12747
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: revival without nanotechnology
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:09:29 -0000

> Message #12718
> From: Thomas Donaldson <>
> Subject: too much enthusiasm interferes with thought
> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:55:30 +1100 (EST)
(del)
> 2. If we can find a way to preserve and revive ourselves which does not
>    involve nanotechnology, then our preservation and revival will happen
>    that much earlier. Yes, I think that for a significant fraction of
>    cryonics patients we can do just that.
(del)

Revival without nanotechnology could mean that a further cryopreservation
may be required before nano would (if ever, of course) be available to make
a substantial reduction in an individual's vulnerability to the ageing
process, disease and accident. Despite all the optimistic talk about
reanimation funds producing vast fortunes for people to live off, it is
possible (even if not particularly likely) that people may get reanimated
but will never be wealthy enough to afford the second cryopreservation.
Don't forget that by the cryopreservation would by then be a regulated
medical procedure, and probably ten to a hundred times more expensive in
real terms.

I don't quite know what the answer to that scenario is, but it is something
that should be discussed.

An individual unsure of his future earring capacity could say that nano
should be the only method used for revival. This certainly isn't the answer
because nano may never live up to its promise, and it would obviously be
better to have another shorter life (compared to a nano dominated universe)
than no extra life at all.

--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, my singles club for
people in Cornwall, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other
projects:       http://geocities.yahoo.com/longevityrpt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12747