X-Message-Number: 13395
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:32:42 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #13390 - #13393

Hi everyone!

"If nanotechnology does not work": well, some people want to restrict
the word "nanotechnology" only to particular kinds of nanotechnology.
If so, it's quite possible that those particular kinds will fail,
even spectacularly. But if we take the meaning of "nanotechnology"
to include ANY means of working with objects on a nanoscale, then
we already have at least one kind (it's called biotechnology, and
is advancing at a fine pace) and no doubt will develop others.

Not only that, but the major problem in reversibly preserving 
someone is going to be that of how to recover them from their 
suspended remains. This means that the problem of how personal 
memory works becomes quite important. It may be that with good 
technology for vitrification we can avoid confronting this problem
directly, but one way or another we will ultimately need to know
how our different kinds of memories work and how our memories get
"written" (in so far as they are written rather than grown) into
our brains. It's that problem which some kind of nanotechnology
may ultimately solve for us... but from what I know of current 
work with vitrification, that solution may come much later than
reversible suspensions.

And will such work become obsolete because of using pigs as a
source for organs? No, not for our brains (and so far as I know
the only serious attempt at organ preservation is conducted by
--- guess who --- cryonicists!). Not only that, but it would
be much better to have several means to replace organs rather
than just one --- if only because not everyone will be happy
to have their organs replaced by those of pigs. Moreover the 
pigs involved also have shorter lifespans than humans, and
the longevity of a transplant is important too. (Not that there
aren't several means to solve that problem).

		Best and long long life to all,

			Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13395