X-Message-Number: 24632
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:54:51 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: for Kennita, RudiH, DSS, Swayze, Jon

To several messengers on Cryonets 24621-24631:

I will try to discuss their messages in the order they appeared.

First, for Kennita Watson: airplanes powered directly by nuclear
reactors may come, but they would likely be much larger than any
airplanes practical today, not for technological reasons but 
because no airline could get enough customers to fill them enough
to profit from using them (presently). However one simple thing
to do is to use a fixed nuclear reactor to make hydrogen fuel for
our airplanes. If lots of people get over their hangups about
nuclear power then that looks almost inevitable --- hydrogen to
power not just our autos, trucks, and buses, but our airplanes
too. And that day is likely to be much closer than many think
(as in my last message on this subject). 

And for those readers of Cryonet who don't like the use of nuclear
power to substitute for coal, oil, gas, etc, I am happy to discuss
this issue in more detail, but not on Cryonet.

For Rudi Hoffman: Gee, you're right about cryonics in the midst
of disasters. Right now working out how to get victims suspended
in such disasters looks like it's low priority, with many other
problems needing solution too. However (not that I expect any
of the cryonics societies to immediately take up this question)
besides running away from the scene of an impending disaster,
ALL the supplies needed for suspension (including fuel, electric
generators, and other things not normally needed) might be 
stored in hardened places underground. But that's for a future
in which cryonics is much more widespread and we've solved a
lot of prior problems, such as verifiable and reversible
vitrification of brains.

For David Stodolsky: What experts believe that a nuclear war is
probable in a few years time, and why do they believe it? If
a relatively primitive country sends relatively primitive
missiles against the US (or for that matter, any other advanced
country) the antimissile batteries should be able to remove 
that particular threat. (Note that I said "relatively primitive":
antimissiles against advanced missile systems would not work
very well at all --- but I note that no such attacks seem likely
in the near future (10 years at least)). Smuggling bombs into
the US would meet with the same problems that smuggling disease
weapons into the US. 

Moreover it's the possibility that a country might soon develop
such weapons that creates the possibility of striking them
preemptively. I note that Israel, not the US, destroyed one
of Iraq's nuclear reactors for just that reason. Do such preemptive
strikes constitute nuclear war?

Finally, even though I live now in Australia, it's not clear to
me that doing so protects me from such threats, nor did I go
to Australia when I first went there for that reason. Australia
has gotten its own share of terrorist attacks, from Bali to 
the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Djakarta.

So back to my first question: who are these experts who are 
saying that a nuclear war may happen relatively soon?

To James Swayze: Your description of how too many people still
unthinkingly adopt the notion of dualism, body and soul (yes, I
know it's not originally yours) is an excellent account of 
one of cryonic's public problems. I want to read the second part
of the article. I will add, though, two points: first, we don't
have to convert the majority of the population of any country
to our views, just keep them from getting on our backs. Second,
given another full century, a lot can change, including such
things as the dualist tendency.

To Jon (dadadodo6): What you say depends a lot on just what
you mean by "seeing" events such as antiaging... or mind emulation
or nanotechnology. Given present work on vitrification
nanotechnology will probably not be needed for revival of 
vitrified patients with relatively simple problems. Curing their
diseases might well use nanotechnological methods, at least
in the broadest sense. To attain a state in which we do not
age constitutes a GOAL of cryonicists; it need not already exist
before cryonics (in the sense of suspension for a long time
until such things as antiaging come about). Finally, I'd like
to know what you mean by the simple phrase "mind emulation".
Some cryonicists would argue that an emulation of you would not
be the same as you; others would argue the opposite. As for my
personal opinion, as much as it's worth, I think that a sufficiently
fine emulation of myself, created after my destruction, would
arguably be a continuation of myself --- but I'll also have to
add that the criteria for a "sufficiently fine" emulation would
be so exacting that such emulations, if they ever become possible,
will only become possible long after both cryonics and antiaging
have succeeded.

What fun! For some time Cryonets haven't awakened much interest
in me for a reply. And the last one had several messages which 
merited replies.

           Best wishes and long long life to all.

               Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24632