X-Message-Number: 3065
Subject: CRYONICS:Reply to Robert Ettinger
From:  (Charles Platt)
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 94 14:34:41 EDT

I have to disagree with some opinions expressed here by Mr. 
Ettinger. I want to emphasize that this doesn't diminish in 
any way my great respect for Mr. Ettinger, who is largely 
responsible for creating the field of cryonics as it exists 
today. I simply feel there is another side to some of the 
topics raised. 

Mr. Ettinger writes:
 
> 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.
 
I would prefer to say that the cost and feasibility of 
repairing freezing damage in the far future is unknown. 
Therefore, I am unwilling to stake my life on it. By 
contrast, I have visited Dr. Fahy's lab, have read his 
papers, and have seen first-hand some of the research that he 
has done on kidney vitrification, which I think could be 
directly applied to reversible brain cryopreservation. 
Therefore, I am more willing to believe in this as a real 
possibility. I don't feel there is any need for optimism, to 
reach this conclusion.
                    
> 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. 
 
If I understand Mr. Ettinger correctly, he seems to be saying 
that the only reason to freeze people, rather than bury them 
conventionally, is that it may reduce the cost of reviving 
them in future. In either case, he seems to be assuming that 
resuscitation is *theoretically* possible. This is a bit hard 
for me to accept. 
 
> 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.
 
Is this the same outlook that Einstein used to express when 
he rejected the quantum theory because he couldn't believe 
that God would "play dice" with the universe? I was under the 
impression that quantum mechanics is more widely accepted
these days.
 
> 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. 
 
Suda's rather primitive experiment certainly showed that 
electro-chemical activity resumed spontaneously in cat brains 
after a long period below 0 Celsius. This surely provides 
some rationale, unless I misunderstand the word. 
 
> Third, the kidney problem has proven intractable for many years, and the
> brain problem may (or may not) be much harder.
 
I believe Fahy's research was done intermittently over 
fifteen years with minimal funding from an institution which 
was unsympathetic to the work. Still, he achieved many of his 
goals, and established a great body of knowledge which can be 
applied to brain cryopreservation. I find this encouraging.  
 
> 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. 
 
True, but some of this process has already taken place. 
 
> 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.
 
A one-person helicopter of the type that Mr. Ettinger is 
talking about was developed in the late 1960s and has been 
featured in at least two popular movies, THE ROAD WARRIOR and 
one of the James Bond series. We have also seen the 
development of low-cost ultralight aircraft. If these devices 
are not widely used, this must be because people don't want 
to use them. Therefore, public interest is the crucial 
factor, not problems in technology--which was my original 
point. Lack of serious interest--not only among the general 
public, but among cryonicists--remains the main obstacle to 
reversible brain cryopreservation. 
 
> What we KNOW is that we can preserve people with limited damage,
 
Respectfully, I disagree. I think we are uncertain about how 
much damage is being done. Mr. Ettinger's own organization is 
currently paying for research on this very subject, which 
suggests to me that he, too, feels at least some doubts. 
 
> This means, I think, that considerations of price and long term stability are
> at least as important as accelerated research.
 
Of course, I agree. But from my perspective, it seems that 
far more attention has been paid to price and long-term 
stability than to research. 
 
--Charles Platt, vice-president, CryoCare Foundation
 
(speaking for myself, not necessarily for CryoCare)

#####################################################################
Charles Platt  /  1133 Broadway (room 1214)  /  New York  /  NY 10010 
               / phone  212 929 3983

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3065