X-Message-Number: 21248
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:15:32 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #21235 - #21247

Well, I seem to have a number of opponents this evening. I will
do the best I can in answering each one.

For Dave Pizer:
Dave, in your original message, which you should be able to consult,
you used a different definition of "same". In arguing with me you
bring in another factor: that duplicates are not duplicates unless
the existence of one somehow depends on the existence of the other.
That's fine, but if we're going to argue anything we need to get
our assumptions nailed down. I don't claim here that I am perfect
in doing so and you are not, just that here you seem to have changed
your definition.

For James Swayze:
I discussed several issues. First, by "evolution" I meant the same
as "natural selection". Don't forget that our ancestors, even back
when they were half ape and half human being, also had to carefully
consider what they would do. That is one way natural selection
works on human beings, and will continue to work. Make a sufficiently
wrong modification of yourself and you will find yourself selected
against.

Second, the problem with saying that we now have (the Shuttle,
or a 757) and therefore respirocytes cannot be excluded comes
not merely because we now have these technical devices. It ignores
all the other proposals for devices to do similar things which
failed when they were first implemented and required lots of 
changes and testing to get them to work. If, today, you want to 
design an airplane and have the expertise to do so, you'll very
likely be able to design an airplane that will work on the first
try --- though I understand that one major reason for that consists
of our present ability to do a LOT of prior testing on computers
before the airplane ever flies. But respirocytes and all those 
other nanodevices people talk about so freely have never been 
built in any form at all, nor have they even been tested as 
complete devices on a large enough computer. It's virtually 
inevitable that their designs are going to have to change, 
perhaps even radically.

As for the USE of respirocytes, I heard you when you said
it was Merkle's idea originally. One more rung downward for 
Merkle. I was taking you as believing what he said uncritically,
which may have been unfair (for which I apologize). Do I think
your ideas for the use of respirocytes provide a present use?
They look to me as if they would run into the same problem
Merkle ran into. Imagine ourselves in a future time with not
just respirocytes as one of the advances, but all kinds of other
advances too. Like means to put out fires very rapidly in buildings
if they start. Or, for that matter, physiological adaptations of
people much like those of whales, so that a person need not
breathe constantly (I note that we rarely face such circumstances
and natural selection may have simply found that it's too much
machinery for too rare an occasion --- which isn't the same as
the present, when we live in buildings which might burn down).

If you are going to work out the advantages of respirocytes, it's
almost meaningless (did I say ABSURD in my last message?) to 
imagine a situation in which the only advance is that of 
respirocytes. You have to compare them to a situation in which
many other advances have also occurred. Respirocytes, for instance,
may provide a fine solution for asthmatics, but do you seriously
believe that people will still get asthma in a world where they
can actually make respirocytes (of ANY kind, with ANY kind of 
design)? That is what I meant when I said that science fiction
stories with space-warping starships and laser rayguns small
enough to fit in our hands, but a medicine incapable of dealing
with cancer, would be ABSURD. Or stories with starships but 
people who could only fight with spears and axes: ABSURD.

            Best wishes and long long life,

               Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21248