X-Message-Number: 16192 Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 16:57:58 +0000 () From: Louis Epstein <> Subject: Tissues,Alcor Focus,AIs... On 4 May 2001, CryoNet wrote: > CryoNet - Fri 4 May 2001 > > #16181: [isml] Corpses may supply neurons to the living (fwd) [Eugene Leitl] > #16183: Project Future Bound Takes Off [Jerry Lemler, M.D.] > #16184: Alcor UK misunderstanding [Linda Chamberlain] > #16186: Re: Important question for the isomorphists [Will Dye] > #16187: Re: Important question for the isomorphists [Jeffrey Soreff] > #16188: Charles - Stop This Now! [david pizer] > #16190: the sins of nations and other topics... [john grigg] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16181 > Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:43:21 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Eugene Leitl <> > Subject: [isml] Corpses may supply neurons to the living (fwd) > > ______________________________________________________________ > Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:33:26 -0700 > From: DS2000 <> > > >From The National Post, > http://www.nationalpost.com/tech/discovery/story.html?f=/stories/20010503/55 > 0548.html > > Corpses may supply neurons to the living > Better than fetuses > > Margaret Munro > National Post > > There can be life after death for human brain cells, say scientists who > are growing neural cells from cadavers in their lab. > > The technique works so well that Fred Gage, of the Salk Institute in La > Jolla, Calif., suggests cells from the newly dead might be grown for use > in transplantation and treatment of disease. > > Gage and his colleagues report in the journal Nature today they have > cultured viable cells from about 20 newly dead infants, children and adults. > The cells -- harvested up to 20 hours after death -- were coaxed to grow > and multiply into new neurons and other "progenitor" cells. > > The scientists say the work raises the possibility that brain cells, > like organs, can be taken from the dead and given to the living to treat > neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease. > > While some people may squirm at the prospect, Gage and his colleagues > suggest it could be less ethically fraught than doing likewise with > aborted fetuses. This raises the prospect of mortalists dying so that immortalists may live.Presumably the harvesting of the neurons from the cadaver makes it impossible for the cadaver to be revived by means that may be developed. I am inclined to believe that this has *more* ethical problems than using foetal tissue. There is impassioned debate over whether embryos are persons, there is no doubt at all that infants and adults are persons except in the strangest of quarters.Using the deaths of persons to benefit others is thus undeniably the case in one situation and only questionably the case in the other. Of course,the issue of mutual exclusivity between being a cryonicist and being an organ donor is old ground,I'm not talking about that. But if it becomes accepted that suspension is viable,this neuron harvesting becomes as much "murder" as John de Rivaz considers autopsies.So this can't be seen as a long-term solution if there is ever to be revival from suspension. Better in the balance to take tissue from what legally never was a person,than to be accused of a form of parasitic vampirism. > There have been several research trials, including one in Halifax, where > fetal brain cells were transplanted into the brains of people with > Parkinson's. Apart from controversy, such treatment is not promising since > fetal tissue is too scarce to supply enough cells to treat the hundreds of > thousands of people with neurodegenerative disorders. > > Brain tissue from cadavers is much more abundant. And the cells can be > prodded into multiplying up to 70 times, according to the Nature report. It > notes brain cells taken from infants and children are more prolific than > adult ones, which multiplied about 30 times after being extracted. Which would indicate that foetal tissue is still a better source when available,as it has the maximum of youth,which is a positive factor. > Stem cells, which are undifferentiated cells that appear to have the ability > to turn into all kinds of different types of cells and tissues, are another > promising source of neural cells. Scientists hope it may one day be possible > to take a small number of an individual's cells and coax them to grow into > new neurons as needed. This could put an end to any need to harvest either > fetal or cadaver tissue. This would indeed be convenient. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16183 > Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:16:15 -0700 > From: "Jerry Lemler, M.D." <> > Subject: Project Future Bound Takes Off > > > Alcor is pleased and excited to announce the development of an improved > remote rescue operation, to be known as Project Future Bound. [snip] > In the first phase of Project Future Bound, our surgeons will perform > cephalic isolation, carotid and vertebral artery cannulation, neuro washout > for greater biological support and faster cooling. Once completed, the > cephalon, securely packed in ice, will be transported to Alcor Central > for the final phases of clinical cryoprotective vitrification, > additional cooldown, and long-term care.. In other words,this is strictly a project for improving neurosuspension; cutting people's heads off expeditiously is seen as a centerpiece of their care. I'll say again that this focus on neuros is something that disturbs me about Alcor.It's one thing to offer it as a last resort,but to deliberately prefer the preservation of only something that,fully repaired,CAN NOT live on its own seems nonsensical. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16186 > Subject: Re: Important question for the isomorphists > Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:25:32 -0500 > From: Will Dye <> > > I don't think we're going to settle the issue of "what is the > precise definition of an entity that merits legal protection" > anytime soon. Even so, I guess Jeff is right that we should > still put in a word of defense now and then when someone says > something particularly disturbing. Well,I certainly agree that "we should still put in a word of defense now and then when someone says something particularly disturbing". And I consider assertions that "artificial intelligences" should come within the definition of entities meriting legal protection to be particularly disturbing! > I agree that we should not, at this early stage of the game, > make broad statements that such entities are not "persons". While I think that this should be accepted a priori. > Relax a little. Apart from regulatory considerations, > the technologies which make it difficult to draw the > lines between life and non-life also tend to make it > less costly to draw those lines generously -- giving the > benefit of the doubt to the borderline entity, without > imposing an unbearable burden on any other entities. Unless drawing the lines to give that benefit of the doubt is itself an unbearable burden on those who it disadvantages. > In this case: if we have the technological means to create > full-blown machine intelligence, we should also have a much > greater ability to provide all of the entities involved with > whatever resources they need in order to survive and prosper. But why should such entities be permitted to prosper? I don't see why you fail to see the prospect of AIs as a dire threat to the human ecological niche...and the highest obligation of humanity as the defense of that niche. > There's no strong need to start declaring broad categories of > entities to be "obviously" unfit for human respect and love. If there is a risk of such existence,there is a need for their containment. > So please, let's give the bots a break. I can't see why we should be so blind. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16187 > Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 18:39:10 -0400 > From: Jeffrey Soreff <> Hmm,I'm not at all far from Fishkill,FWIW. > Subject: Re: Important question for the isomorphists > > >> Louis Epstein wrote: > > >> >Neurosuspension,as I stated,I consider a bad joke...and if no new > >> >organic body can be created for the severed head,there is no point > >> >in attaching it to a substitute. > >> > >> So there is "no point" in reviving a biological brain if it is to be > >> attached to a non-biological body? You do realize, don't you, that > >> there are a _lot_ of people walking around with partially "substitute" > >> bodies? Do you have any fillings in your teeth? > > > >Yes,since I was nineteen...but that doesn't mean I'd want to be the > >head of a robot.(My father has patents for hip and knee replacements > >with bearings in them,for example...but that doesn't mean patients > >should be turned into inorganic entities). > > Hmm, I'd be happy to have my brain in the head of a robot _provided_ > it was a sufficiently good robot. > > >And I hope that anti-aging solutions will make non-renewing parts of > >bodies renew themselves as needed,rather than replace them with > >artificial parts.Artificial is a stopgap. > > Anti-aging solutions that made the non-renewing parts of our bodies > renew themselves are certainly desirable, but I don't thing they are > the last word. > > The question, to my mind, is not whether something is artificial or > biological, but rather how well it works. To date, artificial > replacement parts have in fact had poorer quality than the natural > structures they replaced. Over the long term, however, synthetic > techniques can exploit the best options from _both_ biological > sources and purely artificial sources. In this time frame, artificial > (in this broad sense) isn't a stopgap, it is preferable, and you'll > see perfectly healthy people start to use them. For example, Freitas's > respirocytes would be better than red cells. I'd want them in my > bloodstream today if we could build them now. Wouldn't you? I don't know enough about them. I don't like the idea of deliberate conversion of healthy biological bodies to something else,and hope this never sees acceptance.At the same time,I know nature can be improved upon.What makes my father's hip and knee prostheses better than the ones now on the market is that they are not attempting to mimic the biological design...the conventional implants use plastic pads in the place of cartilage, and these consumable plastic pads gradually migrate through the body in small particles and when used up require the problematic replacement of the whole implant.The bearing-units not only last longer than the pads but can be replaced much more easily. If something can be made to work biologically,it should be. A life form that can not exist independently of civilization supporting it is a risky concept. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16190 > From: "john grigg" <> > Subject: the sins of nations and other topics... > Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:05:27 > > Louis Epstein wrote: > No one yet has explained how the internal structure of a body is > better preserved by freezing in a dewar/cryostat than by "Modern > Mummification". Any takers? > (end) > > I would also like to read a good answer to this question. I always assumed > chemical fixation lead to VASTLY more damage to the brain. I know traditional mummification deliberately destroys the brain. But I'm not sure what "Modern Mummification" does. The advantage mummification has is that it's low-maintenance. Preservation is a mummy's "default" state,you don't need to keep it in temperatures not found in nature or risk distintegration in the few-millennia timeframe. And there seems no way to combine the advantages,so that if cooling is lost flesh still won't decay. > Louis, you certainly do like to respond to the various posters and topics! > Based on how you respond to so much here I think the extrolist might kill > you from typing exhaustion! lol :) I think I'm on enough lists and probably wouldn't be a good match for theirs. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16192