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