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