X-Message-Number: 3153
Date: 16 Sep 94 23:17:09 EDT
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: CRYONICS bickering

My thanks to Derek Ryan for a *good* posting.

I literally read Derek's post while I was lecturing Steve Harris on the same

subject.  I see no point to the discussion Steve has engaged in.  No point to it
in public, and no point to it in private.

Is Steve "correct" in what he says?  Actually, that is irrelevant in this forum
because people are free to make assertions about what is and what was without
any way for the "observer" to verify the claims.  If this true in politics and
in life in general, it is many times more the case with cryonics where
"objectifying" good or bad performance on the basis of ultimate outcome is
currently an impossibility. (Objectifying it in other ways is possible to some
extent, but even there, people will argue about *what* objective criteria are
really relevant to the patient's ultimate survival.)

I have great respect for Steve both as a person and as a colleague.  I have
spoken with him privately on this matter in the past, clearly to no avail.  I
speak publically about it now precisely because Steve is a colleague and a
friend and it will be understandable if others confuse his views and/or his
expression of them with mine.


I have tried mightily these past months to avoid the "mine's bigger than your's"
and "your mother wears army boots" style of argument.  If people are going to
want to relate to me in a positive way they aren't going to want to do so
because I can win the nastiest fight.  In fact, some of the best and most
successful verbal fighters in history lead the lonliest and hardest lives (and
were least loved by those around them): Dorothy Parker, Oscar Wilde and Lillian
Hellman come to mind.  In my personal experience I also knew a woman like those

I cite above and her interpersonal experiences were just as dismal as those from
history I've cited.

Real differences exist amongst cryonics organizations.  CryoCare has its

advantages and Alcor has its advantages.  Frankly, I think that both models have

the potential for success.  Monolithic organizations such as Alcor have suceeded
in the past; I above all have long been aware of this since it was I who
determined (more than anyone else) Alcor's current structure. I did so not on
the basis of planning for failure, but rather on the basis of planning for
success.  All we can do at best right now is assign probabilities based on our
reason, prejudices, and so on.  We cannot KNOW.

I believe that the potential marketplace for cryonics services is actually far
larger than is currently perceived.  Yes, it will take a great deal of work to
get there, but what else is new?

I further believe that different market niches exist.  One of the important
lessons I've learned is not to try and fill them all.  I get calls from
time-to-time that I would have pursued with a vengance in the past.  Now, if I

can clearly see that I can't service the caller's needs, I refer them to others,
including both CI and Alcor.  I would hope that they would do the same for me.

I do this because it is better that someone get frozen (even if not by the
techniques I prefer) rather than NOT get frozen.  I believe that basically CI
and Alcor are not out to defraud anyone and that they have a track record of
carrying out the storage end of cryopreservation with competence.  No, that

isn't a ringing endorsement,  but it isn't an attack either, and the bottom line
is that the *whole community* benefits from increased numbers of patients in

storage and from the greater activity and support of next-of-kin which each case
usually brings.

What has happened is in the past.  What saddens me is what is STILL happening.
There are clearly areas where useful information can be exchanged.  Research is

one of these areas, particularly research on below 0xC preservation where things
are still in such a primitive state and are in so much need of improvement.

I have tried very hard to forge links here and have tried to engage in
cooperative ventures which would avoid needless duplication of resources.  Why
should I tool to cool to -196xC over a week when someone else has that ability
already at their fingertips?

The funny thing is that each of the organizations out there has real advantages

that the others do not; areas of excellence which they could benefit by sharing.
Alcor's engineering capability is very good.  Hugh Hixon's MALSS cart, which

I've seen, is beautifully executed; robust and elegant in design.  The layout of
controls and the perfusion circuit are a substantial improvement both in terms
of safety and ergonomics.

Bob Ettinger has done important work in storage, largely in my opinon of
developing a technology which can be readily expanded in volume.  The major
argument against high vacuum equipment in the long run is that it more or less

stays modular -- and while it is competetive right now, and even desirable under
some circumstances, it clearly cannot compete in the long run where
surface-to-volume effects will become more important (as the number of patients
climbs).  CI is also in one of safer areas (geologically) for storage and could
be made literally amongst the safest by going to underground or using
earth-sheltered construction.

BPI's area of expertise is in the biology and cryobiology of cryonics.  We are
learning a great deal about reversible models of ischemic injury, hypothermic
perfusion and cryoinjury.  I think we are quite good in some of these areas and
will be good in all of them soon.

Surely, what even the dullest of us can see is that, quite naturally, groups
have specialized along the lines of their expertise and talents.  This is to be
expected and is healthy.  In a free market (and in one free from interpersonal
and interorganizational hatred) this specialization works to everybody's
advantage.  People can trade expertise and benefit from each other.  You get to
benefit from the excellence of *each* rather than suffer from their
deficiencies.

No, I am not insane (at least not completely) so I do not expect such "trading"
to start amongst cryonics groups soon.  But I remain open to it, and I will
continue to make entres and suggestions as long as I reasonably can.  

Eventually, if everyone will do just one thing (and it is the one important
thing Derek didn't mention) life will be easier for all of us.  What is that
thing?  It is simply this: realize that each organization out there has some
real positive things to offer.  Even though you may feel the bad outweighs the

good, in most relationships you are not required to take the whole menu.  Try to
pick and choose where you can.

While I may not trust my life to them, I do not feel that Hugh Hixon, Scott
Herman, Steve Bridge, Mike Perry and many others at Alcor are idiots or are
incapable of making real, lasting, and meaningful contributions to cryonics.
Contributions I should know about...

I hope they feel the same way about me.

That is really all we can ask for at this point.  And if we can just reach the
position where we all agree ALL of the people in organization "X" are not TOTAL
idiots or monsters, then we will have come a long way indeed.

Mike Darwin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3153