X-Message-Number: 12790
From: 
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:26:21 +1000
Subject: Optimism and Realism

I would suggest that a more cautious approach when reading reports like these.

Molecular computers may well happen and it may be quite soon but it is not worth
basing your actions on what is still subject to practical demonstration.

When I was searching the web for more information on the subject, I came across
a web page which was quite interesting. A company called Calmec with Mark Reed
as one of their technical advisors. Mark Reed was one of those quoted about the
great success of the molecular switch.

http://www.calmec.com/

I suggest that anyone curious about this technology read their on-line (not yet
completed) prospectus for potential investors. I read it very carefully and to
be honest I would never consider such an investment even if I wanted something

extremely high risk. If I am not prepared to ever consider such an investment, I
ask myself just how much confidence have I got in those developing the
technology and in the technologies likelihood of appearing in the market place.

Now if George Smith wants to invest in such a venture I won't waste time
advising him against it. I would however suggest that the rest of you
concentrate your time and energies on the problems in getting good quality
suspensions. Cryonet seems to be dominated by discussions on AI, stockmarkets,
robots, nanotechnlogy and other such. I am not suggesting that these are not at
least partially valid subjects but they should be in the minority and we should

be thinking about and discussing protocols, cryoprotectives, methods of ensuring
best case scenarios for suspensions, extending our lives etc, much more.

I am not an expert in these fields but I am keen to try learn more. A lot of

people post really interesting stuff about what research is going on in Cryonics

and others post about things they have researched and found out themselves (from
the web etc). Doug Skrecky's fly reports are always interesting! I don't see
people replying to these reports and even when they do, it doesn't generate the
intensity that a simple comment about feelings does.

Before we try to promote nanotechnology, lets try get cryonics preservation

going first. From a technical standpoint, freezing a brain with little or no ice
crystal and membrane damage should be orders of magnitude easier than trying to
get nanotechnology working in a similar time frame. Once we perfect cryonics,
then we can move on to more ambitious plans such a nanotech. I personally am

1000 fold more optimistic about cryonics being perfected within my lifetime that

I am about nanotech. Lets use Occams razor and focus on the real problems of the
moment.


Chris

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12790