X-Message-Number: 28233
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:10:10 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: replies to Jordon, Rudi, Steve (Re: 2020 comments)

> From: "Jordan Sparks" <>
> Subject: 2020 competition
> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:23:32 -0700

> When you condense the timeframe by close to 1000% it simply becomes s.f.

I understand that setting the first revival so soon can seem
outlandish, but when (if) it happens is a matter of speculation. The
whole 2020 contest is speculative, so if some people find the first
revival to be too soon, they probably won't rate my entry very well.

> It
> might have been one thing to say we'd have cryogenic organ banks and to
> explore how that would affect society.

True, but I wanted to deal with cryonics specifically.

> The damage done to the body is far beyond what we can fix, even if you throw
> "stem cell therapy" into it.

Of course, but the break-throughs detailed in my scenario mean that
stem-cell therapy (SCT) can be used to heal damage by replacing
damaged cells with fresh clones. This is the promise of stem-cell
therapy - effectively you could keep up this treatment and
periodically rejuvinate the body.

>  And don't forget you will also have to fix
> whatever killed them in the first place, which is another huge task.

See above.

> You're still
> thinking from the modern "the body can repair itself" paradigm.  But that's
> so wrong.

SCT seems to be a likely route for curing all manner of illness,
injury, and age.

> It will require
> very mature                       > nanotechnology.

Perhaps. I might try a re-write along those lines, but nanotech of
this kind will have such broad and revolutionary applications cryonics
would be over-shadowed. At least with futuristic cryobiology and SCT
you have some familiar medicines directly applicable to cryonics.

>  To suggest to people that > anything less will be
> able to repair the damage simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of the
> issues.

Or disagreement.

> We can't be telling people that we think reversal is right around
> the corner.

The point of 2020 does not seem to be prophecy but an active engagment
with future possibilities. Still, I understand your points and I will
take them into account - thanks.

> From: 
> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:40:21 EDT
> Subject: Anthony Article re: Canada in 2020

> I read Anthony's article and thought it rather well done.

Thanks. It is going to be revised though, in light on recent comments.

> It is perhaps known that I certainly don't agree with Anthony on
> everything...

You mean you refer to my posts as verbiage and then when I ask you for
more pointed remarks you fall silent? I guess that is disagreement...

> Good work, Anthony.

Thanks Rudi, I appreciate you taking the time.

> Message #28230
> From: Steve Jackson <>
> Subject: Canada in 2020
> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:40:43 -0500

(This is a tangent but - are you the very same Steve Jackson that
actually runs and designs SJgames?)

> Cheers for making the attempt.

Thanks for taking a look.

> I do not understand the first sentence, and fear that casual readers
> may find it offputting. It doesn't properly introduce the theme.

You're totally right. This is an oversight from a previous draft. Will revise.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28233