X-Message-Number: 14310
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:47:07 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: re: comments on cryonics research


David Pascal makes some good points about research supported by the
cryonics community. I too doubt that rudeness will produce many donations;
though I (from personal experience) would also add that even politenes
has failed in the past to get anyone who is not already involved with
cryonics (more and more people HAVE become involved over time) to donate
for research.

However there is still a problem with nanotechnology. It's not that we
can't get some form of nanotechnology to "work", it's that getting a form
which will allow revival of suspended patients is not something that
any of the research projects so nicely funded are aiming at. I myself
believe that even with nanotechnology, in the end we'll find out that
WE must support it if we want to use it for our revival. Yes, it may
give us lots of OTHER things, but we'll still have to solve the problem
of revival.

Not only that, but the research on vitrification of BRAIN TISSUE is
important because, if nothing else, it may produce brains which should
clearly be revivable, rather than the brains produced by current 
methods. They may need some form of nanotechnology for actual revival,
but we'll know that the information is still there.

I write this in answer to #14273-14284, and hope that Paul Wakfer or
someone else will clarify just what the situation is with the 
research on brain vitrification. I believe it needs support and hope
to be able to support it, but the discussion on Cryonet has made me
wonder just how that will happen. I am tardy here for the simple reason
that I've been away for several days and only now come to read the
Cryonet messages.

		Best and long long life to all,

			Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14310