X-Message-Number: 3107
From: 
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 94 00:47:52 EDT
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS comments

1. Now I learn that BioPreservation (Darwin/Harris) as well as BioTime
(Segall/Strernberg/Waitz et al) is indeed spending considerable effort on the
cryothermic phases of brain treatment/storage. That is cheerful news, and we
wish them well. 

There  seems to be a problem, however, with the proprietary aspects of these
studies. Any available information on results of this work would be
appreciated, and we are willing to pay a reasonable amount for the trouble of
sending it.

The Cryonics Institute sheep head work was published in its essentials about
two years ago; the current Ukrainian work is being published in THE
IMMORTALIST  as we receive it (although only with some of the photos;
complete photos available), and sometimes also posted in whole or in part on
CryoNet.

If the profit angle rules out any extensive or timely cooperation, then I
suppose those not privy to particular procedures will just have to wait for
the patents to be available. (It may also turn out that the non-proprietary
work will be better or sooner.)

2. When Mae and I retire to Arizona (in about a year) our personal suspension
plans will be based on the same considerations as always--maximizing our
chances, as we perceive them,  within our economic constraints. This may mean
training local morticians in CI procedures, or it may mean something else,
depending on developments. We do of course plan on storage at the CI facility
in Clinton Township, Michigan.

At present, for CI members at a distance, shipment to CI packed in ice is not
the only option. The patient may be perfused by a mortician and then shipped
in ice, or perfused and cooled to dry ice temperature by a (properly
prepared) mortician and then shipped. The sophistication of the
preparation/perfusion is also highly variable, depending on the means and
motivation and capabilities of the patient and family, and evolving over
time. We expect to make steady progress in all these matters. 

3. On the general issue of determinism and its application (if any) to
cryonics:

Everybody keeps telling me what I already know, and what everybody with even
the slightest and most informal scientific education knows--first, that the
current conventional wisdom is that randomness at the fine levels is the last
word; second, that even with full determinism the practical problem of
information gathering and computation seems overwhelming for inference at any
considerable distance in space or time; and third, that certain physical
phenomena such as black holes impose their own kind of irreversibility; and
finally, as a result of all this, that it is stupid to rely on determinism to
rescue cryonics patients.

Most of these comments are correct. The most indisputably  correct one is
that, for practical programs to save ourselves, we must focus on minimizing
damage to the patient and maximizing the survivability of organizations (and
also maximizing affordability, a consideration which often seems to receive
short shrift). It is amazing that a few words about determinism seem to have
affected some people's perceptions of me (and CI) more than our history of
work and non-negligible achievement.

But I do insist on a couple of points, one mainly theoretical and at least
one of some practical value.

(a) As no respondent except Thomas Donaldson (and maybe Yvan Bozzonetti)
seems to have conceded, randomness is--to put it charitably--a poorly defined
concept. [Thanks to Thomas, by the way for his book A GUIDE TO ANTI-AGING
DRUGS--a fine service.] 

In light of the history of science and human thought, I think it is highly
plausible, at least, to surmise that there is no such thing as objective
randomness, and the universe will ultimately be found to be fully lawful. In
fact, it probably runs under Gell-Mann 's Totalitarian Principle: WHATEVER IS
NOT PROHIBITED IS COMPULSORY.

(b) It amazes me how few even of the greatest and supposedly boldest
scientists can get out of the rut--and I don't mean only the non-cryonicists.
"Failure of imagination" is the fatal flaw so often--even the man who
invented that phrase, Arthur Clarke, will probably die because of
indifference to cryonics. Almost all scientists accept uncritically the
face-value interpretations of quantum mechanics--just as almost all people,
including scientists, accept uncritically the traditional views and values of
their cultures. 

Just a couple of centuries ago MOST OF THE UNIVERSE was unknown to us--not
just distant galaxies, but even major phenomena such as the invisible parts
of the electromagnetic spectrum, not to mention our own anatomy and
physiology. We keep forgetting that "The universe is [probably] not only
stranger than we think, but stranger than we CAN think." We keep coming up
with answers (as well as questions) previously unthinkable. I therefore
reject (on a THEORETICAL  or philosophical basis) any proposition implying
that present limits will confine us forever. It is not just possible but
PROBABLE that new information and cunning strategies will eventually
short-circuit the apparent limits of chaos and randomness. 

(c) For the umpteenth time, these theoretical considerations do not absolve
us from the sober responsibilities of conservative planning, meaning we must
in most cases ACT as though there is no help but our own and no stretching of
currently accepted law. NEVERTHELESS we have grounds to reject despair, if
our best efforts do not seem likely to be successful by present criteria.
Those criteria may change.

(d) Those who warn about the extreme difficulties with retro-inference
at a distance could pay heed to Ralph Merkle's cryptographic analogies and
similar considerations. 

Every person leaves his footprints on the sands of time in COUNTLESS ways. I
have pointed out some of them, as have Dandridge Cole and many others. There
are many kinds and routes of inference, not just tracking the motions of
atoms. Some aspects of the anatomy and physiology of your brain may be
capable of inference just by the words you have written and your gestures and
facial expressions in a video. [This kind of thing brings us again to
"philosophical" problems of identity and criteria of survival, but those
problems exist in any case.] The appearance and behavior of your descendants
or other relatives can imply a lot about you. And so on.

4. Thanks to Mike for his offer of prescription-type drugs without a
prescription. We also in some cases use "chemicals" rather than "drugs." But
I still think that, in some cases, some risk exists. Physicians could be
accused of abusing their discretion. If the FDA can classify a substance as
whatever it chooses, and make certain actions crimes retroactively, I
wouldn't put too much trust in apparently tolerated practices.

5. Mike says  that high-vacuum dewar storage is as reliable as Cryonics
Institute's soft-vacuum perlite cryostats. That strikes me as disingenuous.
He goes on to say that the SYSTEM (as a whole) used with the high-vacuum
dewars is as reliable as ours, because of the careful handling, tight
monitoring, and back-ups. That is like saying that, in the hands of a
sufficiently steady and careful man, a straight razor is no more dangerous
than a safety razor. More or less true, but not on target. 

As for Mike's questions (which we HAVE answered in the past): Our cryostats
have all cost (very roughly) the same and the same as our original 1976
estimate--$5,000 per patient. Our new one promises to be somewhat cheaper, as
well as more economical of nitrogen. Boiloff ranges from about 4
liters/patient/day for our two-patient cylindrical unit to 7
liters/patient/day for our 6-patient rectangular unit. Our new 12-patient
rectangular unit will probably boil off around 5-6 liters/patient/day.
Nitrogen presently costs us around $0.44/liter delivered. Roughly, our
original 1976 estimate of nitrogen expense has held--around
$1,000/patient/year--and will be declining.  We think we can get one patient
per ten square feet of floor space, in the longer run. We don't know the
working life of our units, but know of no reason why it should be limited.

6. Perry Metzger says he has yet to see any [research reports] from us.
Perhaps this is because he hasn't been reading THE IMMORTALIST.

7. Paul Wakfer says he has invented a storage improvement that will save at
least 30% of nitrogen cost. That is interesting and commendable, but before
spending money for a patent I suggest he  think a bit. That 30% will happen
pretty soon anyway just in economy of scale, or/and through the use of rigid,
open-cell foam, which is surely in the cards. (Our own current improvements
should help a good bit also, and these will be published.)

8. I am fascinated by some of the things Yvan Bozzonetti writes, but find
them very hard to evaluate. This is probably partly because of his imperfect
command of English (although it is much better than my French), and perhaps
partly because he knows so much more than I do and is so brilliant that I
just can't follow. (I mean this seriously, not sarcastically.) If he has the
talent his comments suggest, he is a valuable resource and should be helped.
Can anyone else cast light on this?

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3107