X-Message-Number: 2742
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 23:27:21 -0400
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <>
Subject: Subject: CRYONICS Nanotechnology & Cryonics

Why might one concentrate more on nanotechnology than on improved
suspensions?

The best way to tell how irreversibly damaged brains are or aren't,
is by restoring suspended patients to life and health.  Until we can
do that, how can we *ever* really tell whether a patient is being
sufficiently preserved, or whether a proposed change in suspension
protocols which causes less damage of one type but more damage of
another type, is a positive or a negative change?

I don't agree that 200 years or 50 years make no difference.  LN
preservation is precarious.  Every year, there's some chance of
government banning cryonics, of any given cryonics organization going
bankrupt, of the economy going belly-up (e.g. a 1930s style depression,
or a hyperinflation, or a repudiation of the federal debt), terrorism,
war, or other calamity.

Also, nanotechnology may have the potential of making cryonics
unnecessary for many of the younger cryonicists, whose current
life expectancies are 40 to 60 years or more.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2742