X-Message-Number: 14066
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: Reanimation issues and KISS
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:27:23 -0700

In Message #14054 From: "Gurvinder Bagga" on the subject of : Reanimation
issues, wrote:

> -  On 1st Jan 2001 we find 1000 frozen bodies , on an ocean floor, which
are found to be about 10000 years old (Atlantis discovered?). The bodies are
in excellent condition and we notice that the freezing techniques employed
by these people was atleast twice as good as our best today.

But what does this mean?  "Twice as good" means exactly what?  That there
are twice as few incidents of ice crystallization of certain size and shape?
Even so, we do not now have the technology to restore those bodies to life
and what we today think are the critical parameters of a "good" or "bad"
freeze may turn out to be entirely incorrect.  Only when we actually possess
the technology to restore the frozen to life will we be able to know what
"good" means in terms of reanimation.

So let's alter this to suggest simply that you find frozen bodies.  We
cannot rationally comment on the "condition" of their frozen suspension.

> Who takes charge of these bodies?

Whomever has the power to do so and the desire to do so will "take charge".
...as with anything else in human society.

> If revival mechanisms become available in a few years are these dead
people revived. Who takes the decision and at whose cost? Or are they put
back in the ocean? Who decides that?

It seems to me, assuming that they weren't all autopsied in the first place,
that at least a few of these bodies would be restored to tap their knowledge
of their history.  Beyond the intelligence gathering aspect, the restoration
of the balance would be entirely dependent upon the costs involved in doing
so.  It is a general assumption that by the time we have the technology
capable of restoring the frozen to life, that same technology will have so
vastly advanced the practical wealth of society as to obviate the concern
for such expenses.  For example, if human workers continue to be replaced by
robotic "slaves", it can be easily projected how there will eventually cease
to need to be an exchange medium of energy (money) as all work would be
performed by "slaves" free.  In such an economy, all of the hypothesized
"frozen dead" could be restored without concern for cost.

> -  On 30th March 2030 there is a nuclear war between China and the US. The
US is nearly destroyed before they can react. Whatever remains of the
economy falls into chinese hands. So does the frozen bodies at ALCOR and CI
(these managed to survive the nuclear attack). Now what?

Or an astroid 25 kilometers in diameter strikes the earth.  Or
nanotechnology terrorists release a carbon-binding nanovirus which destroys
all organic life on earth in about 72 hours or less.  Or you get killed in a
car wreck tomorrow without having signed up for cryonics.

Now what?  You're dead.  That's all. Status quo.

> -  On 15th September 2075 the first cryonically suspended person is
revived using advanced nanotechnology, quantum computing and artificial
intelligence. It has been decided that one person will be revived every two
years to see how they respond and also to take care of any pitfalls along
the way which might require innovative solutions and might take a lot of
time. The person recovers very well but there are other problems. There is
no government to take care of the unemployed. This reanimated person did not
have any assets at the time of death but only his insurance policy which
paid for his suspension( and anyway the current 'american dollar' is worth
twenty times less than the dollar in 2000 when the person was suspended).
It's a harshly competetive world and people have to be highly qualified and
trained to get any kind of work. Where does our reanimated person go from
here?

This question requires several answers.

(1) Our reanimated person goes on with his life.
(2) If he cannot find a way to survive in this nightmare economy you
describe, he will die (perhaps be suspended again to wait for a more sane
future).
(3) It is hard to imagine having both the technology avaialble to restore
the frozen to life while still suffering under the kind of primitive economy
you suggest.
(4) "Never complain about life.  The door is always open to leave."  - the
stoic philosopher Epictitus

> -    On 5th of July 2150 an alien attack takes place. The Earth is
captured and made a colony of the aliens. They also find 3000 suspended
people at five different locations. What happens now?

What happens to humans in general, frozen or not?

> -  On 15th of August 2230 the ozone layer vanishes. Almost all the white
skinned people perish. And along with them most of human civilization. When
the dark skinned discover the bodies of 4000 suspended people they decide to
empty the storage area for their own use and throw the bodies into a nearby
river.
>

See above answer about astroids, terrorists, etc.

> I am not a pessimist. I also belive that someday cryonics will succeed.
But there are some things missing from the way we are trying to do this.

Neither am I a pessimist.  However the concerns expressed in the above
scenerios all seem to be simply pointing to the fact that we cannot
perfectly control the future.  But so what?  It is simply an issue of trying
to prepare for what we can control now and recognizing that staying
physically alive is a dynamic condition which can fail at any moment.

> I proposed last time a 'World cryonics conference' in 2003/04/05 but no
one seemed to be interested. The above examples are only a few problems that
we might face. There are dozens more that we do not even know. If we don't
think like a corporate organisation and have some kind of  image building
excercise we are doomed to fail.

I disagree.  It may be true that it is wiser to attempt to anticipate more
future problems, but if the plan is good enough to work, it will work.
Assuming that NOT struggling to cover ALL possible contingencies ensures
that we WILL fail IS pessimism.

Actually, screwing up seems to be more often a part of long term success
than covering all bases.  IBM rejected desktop computers in favor of mammoth
mainframes.  IBM is still doing well.  The Russian people embraced
totalitarian communism for three generations and yet there is still today a
Russian people.  A missile after launch is constantly "off course" but
corrects its trajectory as it goes.  Along this line someone once defined
the difference between being "smart" and being "wise" as the difference from
learning from your own mistakes (smart) versus learning from the mistakes of
others (wise).  We wish to be wise more than smart, but, despite the cost,
gbeing smart is usually enough to get the job done.

> By throwing ideas at each other on the net without any concrete growth
plans or recognition by the public at large we are going to fail.
>
> REMEMBER - WHEN THE EGYPTIANS BURIED THEIR ROYALS THEY MADE PYRAMIDS THAT
STILL STAND AND ARE ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. THEY MADE A STATEMENT
WHICH THE WORLD NOTICES EVEN TODAY.

(Unless that wasn't their initial purpose in the first place, especially in
the case of the Great Pyramid which never evidenced any funerary items nor
writings - though this deviates from the discussion).

I think it would be great fun to have such a conference.  But what are we
doing right here on the Cryonet?  Except for the social aspect, the IDEAS
can be shared here just as well as face to face.

Perhaps out of such speculations as suggested here some new approach or
angle could arise.  Nevertheless, my own focus is more on the KISS formula
(Keep It Simple, Smith!).  One KISS summary I llike is to simply summarize
any projected cryonics scenerio with the rejoinder ",,, versus being DEAD."

For example:

What if I were restored to life and had not job?   ,,,,VERSUS BEING DEAD.

What if I don't like the future?  ,,,,VERSUS BEING DEAD.

What if cryonics doesn't work?  ,,,,VERSUS BEING DEAD.  (Dead both ways so
it's the same).

What if .....?   ,,,,VERSUS BEING DEAD.

KISS.  I like it.

George Smith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14066