X-Message-Number: 30237
From: 
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:42:36 EST
Subject: Prophets/resuscitation/oil

In a message dated 1/2/08 2:02:03 AM,  writes:


> 
> 
> In Cryonet #30228, Mike Donahue writes,
> 
> >I can promise you that they will all be wrong again and again, until one of 
> them is right.
> 
> The "right prophet" may come along too late to do us any good. And even 

> then, engineered negligible senescence (who the hell can pronounce that phrase
> easily?)won't solve the problem of trying to resuscitate patients in cryonic 
> suspension, every one of which represents a unique challenge, with different 
> pathologies, damage and information loss.
> 
I presume that should civilization continue we will develop a strong set of 
robust tools that will comprehensively make these resuscitations viable.   
Molecular scanning, Nanotech repairbots, quantum computers capable of the 

necessary calculations are all theoretically viable.   Gross damages will be 
easier to 
calculate and restore than molecular level damages I would imagine using such 
computing power.   I also suspect that by the time people are resuscitated it 
will be done only when these powerful tools are available.   

However, a labrat friend of mine claims that engineered microorganisms may 
repair such damage much more easily than nanobots, pointing out that organic 
chemistry already does or is capable of all of the work necessary for such 
repairs if it can be designed and directed to do so. He laughs at the 

nanotechnologists, saying, cells already do all of these things why are they 
trying to make 
machines to do these things cells are already doing perfectly well? 

I would also presume that the CNS would be handled quite differently from 
general body repair, as that is the presumed seat of memory and identity- 

although apparently the human heart also has some integral emotional symbiosis 
with 
the CNS, so certain identified nodes might be handled as exact replicated 
repair vs rejuvenated cells and organ structures. 

Negligible senescense is possibly, probably, I'm guessing, easier than 
cryonic resuscitation, however it may be that the complete toolset discussed 

previously may be necessary for both resuscitation and rejuvenation and youthful
unaging enduring existence. 

I'm not as worried about the oil situation as I used to be.   I think 

population pressures will level out, hopefully in the next 100 years, and start 
to 

decline.   It seems that once a country reaches certain levels of affluence the
birthrate declines dramatically.   

I suspect that electric cars, with nuclear power plants, may be the future of 
transportation and energy worldwide.   Recent improvements in battery design 
indicate that cruising ranges of 120 miles are going to be possible real soon 
now for affordable electric cars, and I think that's about the turning point 
for viability.  I haven't researched it directly but the cost per mile on 
electric cars has been reported to me to be very cheap compared to alcohol or 
gasoline cars.   And I suspect an electric car will have virtually unlimited 

mileage, you may have to replace batteries, wheel bearings and shocks but what 
else 
is there to wear out compared to the internal combustion engine and 
transmission systems? 

Thanks for the discussions I appreciate hearing alternate viewpoints.   What 
was it Criswell said, "The future is very important to all of us, because that 
is where we will all be spending the rest of our lives!"?

Mike Donahue 






> 
> We also have to assume continuity of progressive technological civilization, 
> a scenario which has started to look problematic because of the oil supply. 
> M. King Hubbert , who back in the 1950's developed a model for forecasting 
> oil production, accurately predicted U.S. Peak Oil in 1970, and thought that 

> the world oil supply would run into trouble around the year 2000, looks like a

> much better "futurist" these days than the paleo-transhumanists in the 1970's
> who predicted that we'd become "immortal" by now and live in space colonies.
> 
> As for future fatigue in general, we may have entered a period of relative 
> technological stagnation for some intrinsic reasons. Refer to physicist 

> Jonathan Huebner's paper, "A possible declining trend for worldwide 
innovation":
> 
> http://www.box.net/shared/static/cynj31non2.pdf
> 




**************************************
See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30237