X-Message-Number: 18979
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 09:56:56 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #18974 - #18978

For George Smith:

Generally I enjoy your postings because you say things simply that
others may be shy to say. However on the issue of disease I will
add some points to what I said, since clearly it must have caused
confusion.

First, some diseases now are known to modify our DNA. To fix them 
we must have a version of the patient's CORRECT DNA. If the incubation
time is long enough, we may only have the incorrect version: imagine
a disease that waits for 200 years before showing itself. We may
ALL have it and never know the difference (this is a counterexample,
not a serious proposal).

To modify our cells so that they work "optimally" contains within it
lots of possibilities for error. Just what do you (or I) define as
optimal? Was it their original function or a modified "optimal"
function? For that matter, what is optimal for one person living
in one setting may not be optimal for another living in another
setting. If we propose to use nanobots to fix ourselves, we must
know how to CORRECTLY define optimal. If we fail to do that, we
once more get ourselves into problems (thinking again of programming
errors).

This moves us into the simple fact that not all conditions counted
as diseases come from viruses or microbes. What about cancer or 
heart disease, to name two such diseases. Yes, how and where we
live may affect development of both kinds, but no amount of clearing
out viruses would help either (except in special cases).

Underneath your argument I would say that you make an assumption
which I was explicitly doubting: that somehow we could not only
make repair nanobots, but that we could direct them PERFECTLY to
deal with ALL possible conditions. Even if we give them their own
programs to direct themselves, those programs can (and in real life
DO) contain errors. If we try to direct them more closely, with
the nanobots only containing very simplest programs, we get to 
blame ourselves for the errors. Those errors essentially give us
one more new disease, to be dealt with as we've dealt with others.

Will our ability to cure our diseases (however a disease is defined)
increase with time? Yes, certainly. Yet that's not the same as
perfection and never will be. We may well even find ourselves in
a time in which most diseases come from mistaken repairs made
earlier by doctors working with more primitive nanobots (that
made errors the doctors then did not detect). I do not believe
that we'll find ALL possible diseases to result from such errors,
however ... unless you have a very broad definition of error. If
we continue to explore the universe, we'll find new settings not
previously predicted, and those new settings may cause errors in
US, even if our bodies could deal well with all the previously 
known conditions. Radiation poisoning provides an excellent example
of how just such things can happen.

But I will repeat: I am not saying that our ability to deal with
diseases will not increase. It WILL increase. It's just that 
asking for perfection here will never get a yes answer.

		Best wishes and long long life for all,

			Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18979