X-Message-Number: 19591 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:36:13 -0700 From: James Swayze <> Subject: Another cell biologist mouthing off. Here is something I posted over at Rand Simberg's site. I don't know if he is signed up but he sure is defending cryonics with great effort and doing a good job. Someone only known as Jim and claiming to be a cellular biologist posted the quoted text below. I simply had to respond. "Good Grief! I have to say that all this cryonics blather has really eroded your credibility." The only blather and lack of credibility is yours, Jim. I am amazed you seem never to have heard of nanotechnology. That's what's incredible about the cellular and cryobiology people is that they have such a narrow scope. They make these blanket statements poopooing cryonics without so much as a smidgen of the knowledge even the amateurs, of which I am one, have on the subject. "What makes anyone think that the techniques used today will facilitate thawing and bringing back to life later? It seems highly likely that the means used today are more liekly to result in a very expensive memorial to the deceased than to herald their return." Would you agree that molecular manipulation of the building blocks of cells is going to be possible? Does it violate any physical laws? Do I get a yes and then a no? I should or again you haven't done your homework. Go here to study up my friend. http://www.merkle.com/ Next would you agree that routinely people are now brought back to life from a hypothermic state? Another 'yes' I suppose? Then if we can one day bring the body cell by cell back to a pristine state while still quite cold then warm it up to the same temperature as hypothermic surgery, what pray tell what is the difference between the two? "I would expect this kind of stuff on the floor of a star trek convention from a bunch of teenagers, but not from supposedly intelligent adult comentators." Posted by jim at July 19, 2002 04:06 PM If remaining childlike in our imagination means we have the foresight to see the wonderful possibilities the future holds then we my friend will live and you won't and maybe the gene pool will be better for it. ********* "No Hubris. I am just amazed at the star-eyed innocence displayed by those who believe that science has all answers and over time will be able to surmount everything, even death." Are you kidding me? Science not have all the answers? Since when does it not? In a past life your were a Cardinal chastising Galileo, right? Sure there may be a tiny few that we will never determine, like what existed before the big bang, is there really a god and a way to know it without doing to meet him/her and such as these but not much more than this. Everything can be reduced and deduced and little by little will be Mr. Jim. BTW, why didn't you have the intestinal fortitude to post your email address? "Perhaps science will one day allow for the cryopreservation of a body and the thawing and reviving of the same. I think it foolish to assume that today's methods would facilitate that. In just freezing samples of tissue we can experience huge losses. It is easy to freeze a homogenous cell suspension. All the cells can be preserved pretty well and losses can be minimized. Even then, viabilities of 90% would not be unreasonable, but such would be fatal for a whole organism." If you can admit that it might one day be possible then I suggest you get K. Eric Drexler's book "The Engine's of Creation" http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_9.html and Dr. Robert Freitas' book "Nanomedicine" (visualize it here: http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Gallery/index.html). I have them both, in fact Robert autographed his for me. Available at amazon.com. "In a heterogeneous specimen different cell types have different requirements for storage. Amongst white blood cells, for instance, granulocytes have very different requirements from mononucleated cells such as lymphocytes and monocytes. A preperation which spares the latter cell types will effectively destroy the former." Yea yea yea, we concede the enormous damage. Despite that we strongly feel we will be able to piece by piece, molecule by molecule, atom by atom, rebuild the various cells. Read here for how even the brain can be repaired with nanotech: http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html "My point is simply that, while this might be a goal to aspire to, today it is nothing more than a scam for the fleecing of the star eyed futurist." Be careful what you say Jim, it borders on libel. Cryonics is not a scam. To say something is a scam you must purport that those taking the money have intentionally set out to defraud the customers. This is simply so wrong on so many levels it's near to blasphemy. Firstly, everyone involved is also a member themselves. The companies are non profit. The employees wages are abysmal and so the benefits unless you count being able to keep an eye on your relatives and friends to ensure their survival. There are many more reasons why cryonics is not a scam but my case is enough, I believe, to dispel this myth for good. Please see the following (page down to the July 16 section): http://www.msnbc.com/news/750150.asp?0si=-. It tells about how the founder of cryonics donated $13,000.00 of his own estate to start my cryonics fund. I am a quadriplegic and dependent on social security disability. Because of this it is illegal for me to have assets that could pay for cryonics. My health is too poor to obtain life insurance, the method most use to pay for it (contact info for cryonics insurance ). If it's a scam wouldn't it be pointless to give away such a large sum toward paying for it? Your accusation like all others is groundless and based on ignorance. "Even should the freezing and thawing of the body be successful, there is the additional assumption that science can still cheat death or cure diseases. The human genome project has not lead to cures but to a greater appreciation for the complexity of cell biology. Even long before the full genome was decoded, genes for diseases such as Huntington's Chorea have failed to lead to cures. Transcribing the genome is only the first step." Where have you been the last 50 years? Did you just get teleported from the 19th century? I think maybe you guys that spend so much time in your one field miss out on the entire spectrum of development that's going one. I'll get to more of that later but for now let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that in all the billions upon billions possible worlds in the universe there actually is life elsewhere than here. Could we extrapolate what civilization development for them might be based upon our own experience? Would you expect other civilizations to go through something akin to a hunter-gather stage, then animal husbandry and agriculture? Would as it did here agriculture lead to trade? I expect so. Can we follow this line of development to include technological advancement? I think so. How about eventually the development of science and technology to the level we have today? Now imagine, I know it's hard for you but I'll help ok? Again imagine that this hypothetical civilization is 1000 years or even 10,000 years beyond ours. Would you expect them to have conquered death? I would. I'd be very surprised if it was otherwise. Once a civilization reaches the point of manipulation of matter at the atomic level all bets are off. How can a disease remain a threat if nanobots course through our bloodstream or even residing within each cell constantly repairing cellular damage? You really need to read Robert Freitas' book Nanomedicine or try to get the video "Cutting Edge Science" from The Learning Channel. "Should we be able to cure disease, there will be the remaining question of cellular aging. Dolly the sheep has shown signs of accelerated aging due to the shortened telomere length on her DNA. Unless there is therapy for that you are revived only to be back on death's door." Oops! Again you missed the recent developments. Telomers have already been rejuvenated and therapies are in our time being developed to rejuvenate a human being back to youthful vigor. Then there is tissue engineering and stem cell tissue replacement therapy and then genetic manipulation to switch on our body's dormant amphibian DNA properties for limb regeneration. Ways to safely turn genes on and off are being developed. http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/telomere.htm "Lastly, let's assume that sometime in the distant future your dream becomes reality and it is possible to revive these frozen corpses. In what is likely to be several centuries from now, how many people will be frozen? Who will pay to have these people thawed and treated? Will it not be within the realm of possibility that the revivification of these people will be prevented to to lack of resources, financial or otherwise? Would you promote thawing out of potentially thousands of people, who would be a drain on the society since they are functionally uneducated and quite possibly functionally illiterate due to changing language usage. Even if technology exists at some leter date there is a distinct possibilty that it will not be allowed." Sure it's within the realm of possibility. Anything's possible. But it's not in the realm of probability. Here you need to get in touch with what we call the Singularity http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0235.html?m%3D1. Or ask yourself what the economy will be like when everyone has their own replicater technology. Again we are back to nanotech. However, imagine commanding your personal nanobots to create an apple for from dirt, water, air and some energy. Impossible you say? Nay, an apple seed does the same thing but it merely takes longer. Based on stereo lithography concepts an apple could be built by nanrobotics atom by atom before your very eyes. So could your shelter, clothing, transportation, etc. etc. What will you need money for? Costly to revive people? Not very likely. However, suppose it is expensive just the same. Ever heard of compound interest? Suppose the cryonics organizations have invested in technology stocks over the coming century or two you acquiesce might be the timeline for revival. How much would a $10,000.00 investment be worth by then? Can we say millions? Tens of millions? How about more likely hundreds of millions? Not be allowed? I suppose you are projecting this century's lack of respect for life onto the future. What do you base it on? It really miffs me when people get apocalyptic about the future. You accuse us of too much sci-fi enthusiasm but you seem to have too much sci-fi pessimism. Stop reading doomsday crap man! You're likely to work subconsciously toward fulfillment of your dark nightmares. Garbage in equals garbage out. The proof is that here you are dissing something that is life affirming, respects life and seeks to perpetuate it for all. Rather than be constructive and contribute your talents and knowledge you prefer to try to drag it down. How about that? What if all the naysayers could instead decide it was a noble goal and get on board and help out? How soon could we transform society? Not just cryonics but the entire life extension phenomenom. How much more appreciative of life would people be if they knew that barring terrible accident they could live and love for a thousand of years, perhaps more? What of war or of crime? Would people be so willing to die or send their children to die in useless war? I think not. There would be so much more to lose... so much more to live for. Wouldn't it accelorate progress if knowledge encapsulated within a fragile human vessel was not lost to oblivion in just a few short years? Are these not noble goals? If so then tweak your memeset Jim, contribute! "And while most anticipate some futuristic paradise, it is equally likely that you will wake to a futuristic servitude. The freedom we enjoy today is an anomaly in human history. It would be very unlikely for you to wake up to the same situation." I guess you're not a history buff. If you were then you'd have to notice, I'm surprised you don't anyway, that life is a lot better now than it was 2000, 1000, 500, 200, 100 even 50 years ago. How can you have missed the trends? For a really good source for interpreting the trends in technology and science please go here and study deeply. http://www.kurzweilai.net "It just seems that there is a lot of unfounded optimism and very little critical thought on what the barriers are and what the real outcomes might be." The lack of critical thought is in your camp fella. You have to know something to think critically about it but you have demonstrated incredible lack of knowledge of the subject you purport expertise in. How on Earth could you miss all the work done these days on anti-aging, cell regeneration, tissue engineering, gene therapy, therapeutic cloning and nanotechnology. What remains to be seen is if this ignorance is willful. Are you redeemable? Serendipity happens and so the radio happens to be playing this very minute The Grateful Dead, "Please don't murder me." That's my admonition to you and all the cryonics naysayers. Either learn about it fully or shut the hell up before your memes end up murdering me, those I love and even the future. James Swayze -- MY WEBSITE: http://www.geocities.com/~davidpascal/swayze/ A COLLECTION of photos of me and some of my artwork: http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4292752723&code=2039335&mode=invite A RADIO INTERVIEW on Dr. J's ChangeSurfer Radio program with me and the father of cryonics Prof. Robert Ettinger, author of "The Prospect of Immortality": http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=3728 A RELIGION I actually recommend: http://uk.geocities.com/venturist2001/index.html A FAVORITE quote: Last lines of the first Star Trek the Next Generation movie. Capt. Picard: "What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived, after all Number One, we're only mortal." Will Ryker: "Speak for yourself captain, I intend to live forever!" Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19591