X-Message-Number: 3072
Date:  Tue, 06 Sep 94 18:48:55 
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Just Two Categories of Cryonicists?


In message #3062 (Research) Mike Darwin writes (referring to a 
previous posting by Bob Ettinger about Bob's near term pessimism 
and long term optimism):

>Bob's posting is of use in that it shows quite nicely that there are 
>two distinctly different classes of cryonicist.  Bob is in one class.  I 
>am in another.  I do not mean to make judgments here in some 
>perjorative way.  Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

I have very much appreciated Mike's recent postings about his (and 
Greg Fahy's) recent work and plans for brain cryopreservation 
research.  Very informative.  I'm positive that most readers of the 
CryoNet are pleased to see that activity in this area is increasing.

But also, I think that lumping all cryonicists into "two distinctly 
different classes" is muddy thinking, and, contrary to Mike's intent 
(as I perceive it), I think it does more to alienate potential allies 
than to gain support for his efforts.

Based on past statements (by Mike and others who have repeated 
this argument over the past year and again recently) I assume that 
he defines the two classes as "Those who think current suspension 
procedures are good enough" and "Those who don't."  Stated 
another way:  "Those who think nanotech (big or small 'N') will 
solve all of the problems caused by our currently damaging 
techniques" and "Those who don't."  Stated yet another way:  
"Those who believe that research aimed at completely reversible 
suspension procedures should be our highest priority" and again 
"Those who don't."

In reality, the division of opinions on these topics is not nearly so 
neat as to be easily lumped into just two categories.  Ask 500 
cryonicists to estimate the chances--from a technological 
standpoint--that they will be revived "as themselves" (whatever that 
means) if suspended today under ideal conditions, and you will get 
at least 500 different answers.  (I say "at least" because I'd give 
more than a few different answers myself, depending on my mood 
when you put the question to me.  :-)

More importantly, I doubt very seriously, despite the many claims 
that this is the case, that any intelligent cryonicist would say, "We 
should not do research.  It is a waste of our time and money.  I am 
positive that we are doing a good enough job.  I am positive that 
we are preserving enough of the significant structures which house 
memory."  

I'm sure that everyone here supports the notion that, until we have a 
fully reversible procedure, we should continue to improve our 
procedures as rapidly as possible.  

And that is exactly what we are doing!

Even Bob Ettinger, whom Mike uses as an example to make his 
point above, is spearheading important research to find out more 
about--and improve--CI's procedures.  As Mike says elsewhere, 
Alcor is also in the midst of starting its own research project.

So then, where's the beef?

Well, I gather that it lies in our varying viewpoints as to *which* 
routes will get us to the promised land of a completely reversible 
procedure the soonest.

Take, for example, a recent statement from Charles Platt in 
Message #3041 (Money for research):

>My point, however, is the principle which is involved here. Do we, 
>as a community, believe that research on reversible brain 
>cryopreservation should be our highest priority? 

Good question.  One which deserves some air time.  (And which I 
will save for another message.)

>And if so, are many of us willing to put some money into it? 
>In my experience, the answer to both of these questions is 
>"no," because most cryonicists prefer to believe that our 
>current (somewhat limited) capabilities are satisfactory. I 
>don't share this faith, which is why I have already put my 
>$10,000 into research (21st Century Medicine, when the 
>company was established). 
>
>I am constantly surprised and troubled by the willingness of 
>so many cryonicists to accept the current status-quo.

Here is where we diverge.  I find these statements to be both overly 
generalized and somewhat exaggerated.  Who, exactly, thinks of 
our current capabilities as "satisfactory"?  Who, exactly, finds the 
status-quo to be acceptable?  I think that we all want a fully 
reversible procedure.  It may (or may not) be true that reversible 
brain cryopreservation is the most important first step to achieving 
such a procedure, but even if we all accept this premise, we are still 
left with a lot of very important questions, about which reasonable 
cryonicists may reasonably disagree.

Examples:  What is the best method for achieving reversible brain 
cryopreservation?  To whom should I give my money?  How do I 
know my money will be well spent?  How likely it is that those to 
whom I give my money will achieve reversible brain 
cryopreservation in time to benefit me personally?  Even if they 
achieve it in my lifetime, how do I know that other circumstances 
won't intervene and prevent the application of the new procedure in 
my suspension (meaning that I will have wasted my money?)

I think we would do well to rid ourselves of the notion that being a 
cryonicist is a simple either/or equation.  (I.e., "Either you're 
devoted enough--and rational enough--to spend most of your effort 
on brain cryopreservation, or you aren't.")  There are many 
problems to tackle, many ideas as to which are most important, and 
few of us devoted enough to help solve these problems even when 
we agree.

The more we support the efforts of those who hold alternative 
viewpoints, and the less we insult them for not being smart enough 
to subscribe to our own opinions, the more productive work we 
will get done, both individually and collectively.

Forward in all directions!

Derek Ryan
Membership Administrator
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Ph. # 602-922-9013
Email: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3072