X-Message-Number: 17453
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:18:46 +0000
Subject: Re: Plastination
From: "" <>

Mike Perry <> wrote:

>> I have to say, in apparent contradiction to what some have expressed,
that I think these are *good* ideas to investigate and consider, and
regret that more effort has not been spent in this direction. All you
really need is the brain in some inferable form to bring back the person,
if a reasonable nanotechnology can be developed. So a good chemopreservation
should be adequate, and would obviate certain problems with cryonics,
such as the requirement for continuous, high-cost maintenance.<<

Hear, hear! Mr. Perry and others who are interested in plastination could,
for example, contact University of Michigan Medical School's Plastination
Laboratory (see http://www.med.umich.edu/anatomy/plastinate/ ) or one

of the other institutions that practice plastination (see 
http://anzwers.org/free/chimaera/plastination.html#plastilinks
) with questions like:

-Would they be willing to plastinate human/animal (pet) brains for non-research
purposes?
-If so, how much would this approximately cost?
-Would it be possible to use body donation (minus the brain, obviously)
as a form of compensation/payment, perhaps combined with a small fee?
-In case they're not willing to cooperate -- why? Perhaps their refusal
is based on a misunderstanding/prejudice?
- "" "" do they know of organizations/persons who *would* be willing
to perform non-research plastinations?
-What is known about the rate of decay in RT-stored plastinated specimens,
specifically whole human brains that have been prepared using the S-10
standard protocol? Same regarding cooled specimens. 
-What is known about ultrastructure preservation, both long- & short-term,
in plastinated specimens? 
-Etc.

I've already contacted the IfP in Germany, but the more information we
have about this, the better, and if you want to use the services of a
local facility, it will have to be contacted separately anyway.
====
> From: Charles Platt 

> It has been pointed out to me that the process of plastination would
> still
> depend, for its effectiveness, on good perfusion via an open
> cardiovascular system (i.e. one that had not become blocked with blood
> clots). Thus, even if it somehow preserved structure and even chemical
> neuron states (or an analogue of them), it would not be such an easy
> answer.

True, the procedure itself is relatively complicated. However, if it
could be performed by an existing plastination outfit that already has
the necessary equipment and expertise, such as the IfP in Germany or
the University of Michigan Medical School's Plastination Laboratory (see
links above) in the US, for example, it may cost only a couple of thousand
dollars, which is an absolute bargain compared to cryonics. Also, storage
and handling of the finished specimen could be considerably easier and
cheaper.
 
> I confess I mentioned it not because I thought it sounded like a good
> idea, but because I think it is a terrible idea. If it did indeed induce
> "perfect" preservation, which could only be reversed by nanotechnology
> on
> a cell-by-cell basis, it would be the ultimate excuse for not bothering
> to
> develop reversible vitrification today, and postponing all the problems
> of
> resuscitation till some benevolent entities of the future are ready
> to do
> it all for us.

Personally, I don't really see plastination as a good alternative for
those who can (easily) afford cryonic suspension. For those who can't,
however, this may be the only reasonable shot at potential immortality.
The question is not "should I choose cryonics/vitrification or plastination",
but rather "should I choose plastination or burial/cremation." I think
the answer to the latter question is pretty obvious...The alternative
would be to say "tough luck, partner, don't die anytime soon" to those
who want preservation, but can't afford cryonics. And let's not forget
that even if you're "comfortably" signed up now, you might suddenly,
due to unforeseen circumstances, find yourself in a situation where you
no longer can afford cryonics. That's why taking a good look at plastination
is something of a moral *as well as a rational* imperative. 
 
> This still strikes me as the major failing in cryonics: An unsupported
> conviction that Santa-Claus-like scientists of tomorrow will perform,
> at
> virtually no charge, the challenging little chores that we haven't
> quite
> succeeded in completing ourselves. 

If nanotech and AI deliver, and there's currently no indication that
they won't, a near-perfect, technologically hyper-advanced world of plenty
is more or less guaranteed. Either that or total annihilation. Just because
it's hard to imagine *now* doesn't automatically mean that it's all just
wishful thinking. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if future sentients
will have complete control over matter, and indeed time itself. Raising
the dead, even those that didn't get preserved, will probably be a piece
of cake. Now, whether they'll -being so much higher developed than we
are- still be *interested* in such things is a different matter altogether...

> Quite apart from the questionable
> ethics of this attitude, 

You mean, as opposed to withholding a potentially useful means of preservation
from those who can't afford cryonics services?

> it presents a problem when trying to sell
> cryonics to cautious potential clients who have a healthily skeptical,
> as
> opposed to a diehard optimistic, attitude toward the future.

Not at all. It's really quite simple: got plenty of cash/can afford the
required life insurance --> choose cryonics/vitrification. Don't have
the cash/can't afford life insurance --> choose plastination or some
other low-budget means of preservation. Who could reasonably object to
such a setup?? Prime directive: always preserve as much as you can (afford).


___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17453