X-Message-Number: 21098
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 13:51:42 EST
Subject: Re: scanner vs biotech

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From Thomas Donaldson:
> A very short comment for Yvan Bozzonetti:
> We may do much better in reviving people sooner if we used either
> nanotech or even a subclass of it called biotech. I don't doubt 
> that complex (electronic?) devices may someday exist able to 
> map out an entire damaged brain --- though they would have to 
> be used with at least an equally complex computer able to work
> out from the damaged brain just how it should go back together.
> But other methods may become workable sooner.

You may be right, may be not. I have no doubt that biotechnology can do many 
things, the question is: Can it do everything? My opinion is that it will do 
someday... But half the work will have to be done before cooling. That is to 
say: Biochemical methods will produce a reversible cryonics state. The 
problem is that this may be far more difficult to apply to current patients. 
Even when a reversible system will be found, it may not be used in all cases. 
There may be some "bad cases." The problem is that not all these bad cases 
will be identical, each subset may need its own peculiar technology and even 
if they are in principle possible, cost will be a major delay to implement 

The scanner - downloading option may come faster for these cases, its main 
advantage is its universality, one technology for every case, whatever the 
conservation used.

The instrumental approach I want to follow has another advantage: It can be 
planned, cut into steps, each with a good predictable duration and cost. An 
Intensity Interferometer can be built in 15 - 20 years, the high performance 
x-ray system would take 30 years. It is a money problem, we know how to 
start, where to go. It is not the same with biotechnology and can't be: 
Biotech progress rests on biological science advance and such advance can't 
be predicted. A QND interferometer is a prodigious machine, but the science 
behind it is known for more than 80 years now.

Yvan Bozzonetti.


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21098