X-Message-Number: 2790
From: Ralph Merkle <>
Subject: CRYONICS Cryonics and Future Medical Technology
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 15:09:59 PDT
Cryonics and Future Medical Technology
There has been some recent discussion about the relationship between
nanotechnology and cryonics. It would seem more appropriate to discuss
the relationship between future medical technology and cryonics.
To illustrate this point, consider "Cryonics, cryptanalysis, and maximum
likelihood estimation" (which will appear in the proceedings of the recent
Extropy conference). This paper considers the application of cryptanalytic
methods to the recovery of information about neuronal connectivity from
frozen brain tissue; a particular method used to determine the wiring in World
War II rotor machines can be adapted to determine the neuronal wiring when
partial or incomplete information is available (i.e., as a result of damage
caused by a poor suspension in which there was significant ischemic time, poor
perfusion of cryoprotecant, etc).
The application of cryptanalytic methods to cryonics is largely unrelated to
nanotechnology, yet it is relevant if we are to estimate the ability of future
medical technology to revive a frozen patient. Likewise, other technologies
will no doubt be relevant to future medical capabilities and yet not be
closely related to nanotechnology.
Before considering the kinds of damage that future medical technology might
reasonably be able to reverse, it is worth pointing out that the critical
issues facing cryonics today are not primarily technical in nature but are
instead more fundamentally bound up with human attitudes, emotions and
beliefs.
Not too long ago some Southern California coroners deliberately subjected an
Alcor suspension patient to over 24 hours of warm ischemia (he'd been shot
in the head). In the various legal actions that have been pursued in
California courts, I do not recall anyone arguing that cryonics was either
infeasible or improbable, nor do I have any reason to believe that the
coroners in question would have claimed that cryonics was infeasible had
they been asked about the subject. The action taken was directly contrary
to the wishes of the patient, and did not further the coroners supposedly
legitimate duty to conduct an informative autopsy. Indeed, rapid cooling
would likely have been helpful in preserving additional detail. The
individuals responsible have not been punished, nor is there even any
consideration that such a course of action might be appropriate.
In short, not only is it possible that they killed him, they wouldn't even
argue that they hadn't. They'd say they were just doing their job. And they'd
do it again. Clearly, the current social and legal context is not optimal for
those interested in long term survival.
Or consider that there are over 5 billion people on the planet (most of whom
profess that saving lives is good and ending lives is bad) and that only a few
thousand take a serious interest in cryonics: a method of quite literally
saving the lives of billions of people. Perhaps some percentage of these
people are perfectly rational individuals who would adopt cryonics if they
thought it would work and are merely unpersuaded that it is feasible.
Anyone with any experience in cryonics, however, is well aware that most
people's response to cryonics has little to do with rationality and logic.
A common attitude was expressed by Southard (a cryobiologist) in a debate on
national television: people are supposed to die and saving lives of people who
are "too old" is a bad idea. It is also common for people to argue against
cryonics on the grounds that it might result in overpopulation: this casual
suggestion that mass murder is a suitable method of dealing with concerns
about population is completely at variance with normal ethical standards.
The fundamental issue in cryonics today, therefore, is to understand and
change this rather odd attitude; to arouse at least some small percentage of
the population from their hypnotic indifference to their imminent demise and
focus their activities on some simple strategies for staying alive.
Cryonics is not the only such strategy: many researchers pursuing the goal
of extending human life span have noted that support for such activities is
curiously small, and that overt hostility is not an uncommon response.
There are, of course, many ways to gain greater acceptance for cryonics.
Legal action has been used and has resulted in a beneficial improvement in the
behavior of some officials, notably officials of the California Department
of Health Services, who view the increased record keeping burden (someone
who was frozen and revived would cause confusion in mortality statistics) as a
sufficient reason to kill people.
The court records with their arguments are matters of public record and are
both extremely amusing and utterly horrifying. "There is also an overwhelming
public purpose for ensuring that only recognized types of disposition are
being carried out, especially in light of the facts of this case. Cryonic
suspension, as practiced by Alcor, presents serious questions regarding public
health and mortality statistics. Should cryonically suspended people be
considered 'dead' or should a separate category of 'suspended' people be
created? How should such people be registered in official records?" "...what
would happen to such estate and assets if and when cryonic suspension is
successful and the decedent is restored to life? Whose identity is the person
to assume or be assigned and what of the record of the person's death?"
Fortunately, the courts were not impressed. "These are, of course, but a
few of the presently imaginable conundrums which could arise should Alcor at
some future time actually succeed in reviving the currently dead.
Nonetheless, we are confident that those persons who will then head our
various branches of government will be far wiser than we and entirely
capable of resolving such dilemmatic issues without our assistance."
Stories that present cryonics as reasonable and life saving are also
useful. The recent episode of "Picket Fences," though intended primarily to
entertain and amuse, still presented cryonics to a broad audience in a fashion
that is likely to illicit sympathy and interest in many.
Direct one-on-one contact with friends, relatives, coworkers and others has
proven effective. Television, newspapers and other news media simply can't
substitute for a conversation with someone you know. Simple questions and
simple answers ("Ohhh! You pay for it with life insurance!") can clear up
concerns that would otherwise go unaddressed.
Some are influenced by impressive facilities and reasonable finances. There
is a certain feeling of confidence that comes from an impressive building that
has the right "look." And there must be adequate money to pay for the
liquid nitrogen, and financial safeguards to insure that the money stays safe.
Some are influenced by organizational stability and cohesiveness. An
organization with a well known and well understood set of objectives, with
officers and staff who understand and share those objectives and will continue
despite adversity is an asset that can favorably influence many.
Some are of the opinion that logic and rationality, feeble forces though
they may be in the human psyche, should be pursued as well. There is evidence
that at least some people can be persuaded by this approach. Articles in
scientific and technical journals, presentations at conferences, discussions
of the technical issues: these are all part of the modern scientific approach.
Asked to choose which course of action to pursue, different people pursue
different approaches. Some might support the Hemlock Society in their quest
to legalize "death with dignity." Some might take direct legal action, or
pursue a career in law to make sure appropriate and effective legal actions
are taken in a timely fashion. Some might make money and use it to support
cryonics directly. Some might pursue a successful career as a writer,
adding cryonics to the plot whenever they can slip it in. How much help
have we received from the writers of "Picket Fences" and other shows and
stories? Some might talk with friends and relatives. Some might pursue a
career in cryobiology, thus gaining acceptance from that community,
providing evidence that cryonics will work, and improving suspension methods.
All these and more need to be pursued simultaneously. There are many things
that need to be accomplished to make cryonics a success (and I hasten to add I
have touched on only a few here -- there are many others). Not everyone
either can or should attempt to do all of them. As more people enter
cryonics, each individual will decide where and how much they can help.
Some will be content to pay their dues and hope for the best. Others will
want to take a more active role and try to improve some part for the
betterment of all. There are many ways of contributing, and I expect that all
these contributions will help.
Each person will add to the whole, and almost none will leave it smaller by
their efforts (though I'll make an exception for Nelson...).
Which brings us to that small minority of us that put our faith in logic and
rationality. Here, the question is simple: will cryonics work? To
persuade those who act on evidence and logic the path is clear. There are two
main issues: how much damage is done during suspension? And what kinds of
damage will future medical technology be able to reverse?
Clearly, we would like to minimize damage while at the same time maximizing
the abilities of future medical technology. We would like suspension
technologies that would let us simply warm the patient up, and repair
technologies that can revive a patient after substantial delay, ischemia,
and freezing injury. For various reasons, it is my opinion that to gain
substantial acceptance of cryonics in the technical and medical communities it
will be necessary to both show that suspension damage can and is being
minimized, and also to show that future medical technologies will be able to
reverse substantially greater injuries than typically occur in a suspension.
While many people have thought about both parts of this problem, most have
emphasized one aspect or the other. This emphasis allows a more detailed
and accurate analysis than would be possible if an attempt were made by a
single individual to simultaneously pursue both. Different individuals also
vary in their backgrounds, career choices, and interests and so it is
natural for one person to emphasize that aspect of the problem which fits more
easily with other aspects of their life. Such diversity is healthy and should
be encouraged.
It is also the case that different people are more influenced by conclusions
from one area or the other. Some are more impressed with (for example)
experimental work which recovers mammals after several hours at low
temperature, while others are more impressed by work showing that future
medical technologies should be able to reverse even severe injuries.
Various efforts to determine which is "really" more important miss the
fundamental point that different people in the world today can be more
effectively persuaded by different approaches: pursuit of both areas is
important.
Opinions about what course of action will most effectively increase the
probability of success of cryonics are varied. These differences depend not
only on differing interpretations of available evidence and differing levels
of expertise in differing aspects of the problem, but also on differing
objectives. The objectives of (1) the terminally ill patient facing certain
death within a few months differ from (2) the objectives of the older person
who expects to survive perhaps another decade which differ from (3) the
objectives of the younger person who might or might not need cryonic
suspension at all which differ from (4)the objectives of the healthy person
with a loved one in suspension. This is only a small sampling of the
varying motives that people can bring to this issue. Given the broad range of
circumstances and the widely differing backgrounds and types of knowledge it
is unsurprising that diverse courses of action have been proposed.
As we discuss and evaluate the alternative courses of action that are
available, it is worthwhile to remember that people who disagree with us do
not necessarily do so because of either intellectual inferiority or hideous
personality defects. As an example, some think that current suspenion
technologies have a relatively high probability of success. Some think the
probability of success is moderate or low. There is room for disagreement,
and discussion of this issue would seem likely to improve our collective
knowledge of this subject. To be useful, however, such discussions must
make apparent to a broader audience facts, lines of logic and concepts that
were previously apparent to only a few. While determining the reason or
reasons which cause anothers opinion to differ from our own can be difficult
(much like debugging a program, in some respects), the results can often be
illuminating. Differing implicit assumptions, different backgrounds,
errors, etc. can all play a role.
The creation of unpleasant sounding labels and their application to those
foolish individuals who fail to agree with our own wise and perceptive views
is an old tradition among humans, but it is a tradition that can breed
factionalism and divisiveness. Calling people names might feel good, but it
both divides us and leaves us no wiser than before. A better approach is to
deal with the individual differences one at a time, gradually making
explicit the implicit assumptions, and gradually bringing clarity to the
subject. There will likely remain some disagreements, but it is my experience
that they will not be over trivial issues that are easily resolved, but rather
over difficult issues where the preponderance of evidence is not yet
entirely clear and where people of good will can reasonably disagree.
Explicitly identifying such areas is useful, for others can then focus on
resolving the issues (either by experimentation or theoretical analysis or
both).
We are few and the world is large. Success is likely but not assured, and
depends on cooperation. We should encourage forms of discussion that are
likely to clarify and enlighten, and discourage attempts to label one or
another group in ways that encourage division and factionalism but bring no
gain in our understanding of the issues, of the world, and of ourselves.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2790