X-Message-Number: 28301
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 23:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: human screener <>
Subject: Embryo cryonics-- Concept doesn't fly after all. 

This post is a continuation from 

After a lenghty exchange of ideas at the Alcor United
forum [32], it now appears to me that "embryo
cryonics" is not a valid concept. Brian Wowk reminded
me that cryonics was defined nicely by Merkle in terms
of preventing information theoretic death-- which is
defined in terms of contents of the brain-- as the
brain is the repository of the mind. An embryo has no
mind-- so there is no information in the brain to
preserve-- therefore there cannot be any such thing as
embryo cryonics. 

To cover the situation in which an embryo is preserved
in a situation where the intention is to bring it to
term I now suggest the term "embryo cryogenic rescue"
or ECR. Thanks to all who helped me think this
through-- especially Wowk who himself went through a
number of points before arriving at the final

Flavinoid had a good question-- why should embryos
even be considered for reanimation given the lack of
sentience? I suggested that cryonicists could make a
big splash in the frozen embryo debate by agreeing
with those who already believe embryos are
sacrosanct-- and offering to include them, as people,
in the cryonics program. I thought that this would
affect cryonics favorably because it would help widen
the definition of what a person is, and this wider
definition would be applied to both ends of life-- the
pre-born cryopreserved and the legally post-mortem

Now however, I think "embryo cryonics" can't exist
because an embryo has no mind. Embryo Cryogenic Rescue
(ECR) would be the early end of life analog to
cryonics at the far end of life. It occurred to me
that ECR could be termed "cryonix" with an "x" to
signify no mind. Embryo cryonix would be defined as
the intent and effort to reanimate and bring to term,
frozen embryos. 

Mark Plus originally got me thinking on this idea when
he waxed enthusiastic about a program to screen
embryos for 6,000 DNA defects-- the "defective"
embryos being slated for discard-- maybe for minor
defects that we ourselves all have. My grand slam
solution for the problem in the reproductive medicine
community involving hundreds of thousands of discarded
or frozen and abandoned embryos-- some of whose
defects included merely being an unpreferred gender
(!)-- is to point out where ECR (embryo cryogenic
rescue) (or "cryonix") can be of help. A few programs
like the Snowflake program idea that Bush talked about
at his embryonic stem-cell veto speech would be
examples of successful "cryonix" programs. 

I consider this topic closed now. Hopefully I've
established ECR as a separate idea from cryonics. The
common concept linking ECR ("cryonix") and cryonics
would be "cryogenic rescue" (CR). In the future, I'd
like to see both embryos in ECR programs and
cryonauts-- recognized as persons with inalienable
rights under the same legislation. I'd like to see
stem cells derived from adult stem cell programs and
umbilical cord blood saved for personal stem cells--
as alternatives to embryo harvesting and abortion of
fetuses for the purpose of stem cell harvesting. 

[32] Alcor United thread where several cryos hack
through definitions and where Brian Wowk came up a
good response.
[33] Ben Best explains CI's position on why ECR
(embryo cryogenic rescue) can't be taken on.
[34] Kennita Watson's comment on regulations for
living embryos vs legally dead people.
[35] Jordan Sparks says ECR is completely unrelated to
cryonics claiming it doesn't deserve an explanation. 
[36] John DeRivaz on regulations and a scenario
[37] Flavinoid asks if I even suggested why
non-sentient embryos should be preserved.
[38] David Stodolsky comments on DeRivaz's scenario

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28301