X-Message-Number: 3052
From: 
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 94 12:11:51 EDT
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS perspective

Some people in cryonics are long-term pessimists, in a certain sense, and
short-term optimists. They think there is only a low probability of people
frozen by current methods ever being revived; at the same time, they think
there is a good chance of achieving fully reversible human brain
cryopreservation within a few years for a few million dollars.

My view is the opposite; I am a long term optimist and short term pessimist.
My reasons are simple and clear, and as usual I find it amazing that anyone
can disagree with me. (Of course, I sometimes also find my own previous
opinions amazing.)

1. I think it is nearly certain that people frozen by today's methods (even
after considerable delay) and kept  in cryogenic storage--or even if they are
just tossed into a vat of liquid nitrogen--will eventually be revivable by
future technology.  (I hope it need not be emphasized that this does not mean
I am complacent about procedures.) 

There are many reasons for this long term optimism, but the simplest bottom
line is that I believe the universe is strictly deterministic. This means
that no information is ever lost, and with enough time, wealth, and incentive
any previous structure can be repaired or rebuilt. 

Why do I think strict determinism governs the world? Simply because--as far
as I can see--there is no alternative. As far as I know, the only alternative
ever even PROPOSED is that of partial "randomness," as in the usual
interpretation of quantum mechanics. But randomness in the objective
sense--partial or otherwise--seems to me a meaningless term. At any rate, I
have never read or heard a definition or explanation of objective randomness
that was coherent or intelligible, let alone persuasive.

2. Why am I skeptical about achieving fully reversible human brain
cryopreservation in a few years for a few million dollars? 

Fourth, I have seen no convincing rationale for this proposition. 

Third, the kidney problem has proven intractable for many years, and the
brain problem may (or may not) be much harder.

Second, research is often impossible to compress in time, no matter how much
money you throw at it. Progress often has to build step by step, with time in
between to ponder and think and gather resources and new ideas and allow
workers to criticize and consult each other. 

First, there is a very general lesson exemplified by the example I have often
used, that of the flying flivver.

When I was growing up, around 1930, a newspaper ran a feature on expected
advances of the next 50 years. Prominent among them was the "flying
flivver"--a kind of family helicopter, cheap enough and simple enough and
safe enough so anyone could use it. Well, more than 50 years have passed, and
the flying flivver is not even on the horizon--even though, many will agree,
its difficulty from the standpoint of 1930 was probably MUCH less than the
difficulty, from the standpoint of 1994, of fully reversible brain
cryopreservation.

Again, needless to say, this is not an argument against trying to accelerate
research; quite the contrary. But it is a reminder that we should keep
perspective. What we KNOW is that we can preserve people with limited damage,
and that unless we can KEEP them preserved their chances will be minimal.
This means, I think, that considerations of price and long term stability are
at least as important as accelerated research.

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3052