X-Message-Number: 3211
From:  (Ian Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Current biostatis techniques
Date: 4 Oct 1994 09:16:52 -0500
Message-ID: <>

[ Note: The following message, which Brian Wowk responded to in message
  #3208, never arrived at my USENET machine, due to some glitch in the
  USENET feed.  Thanks to Brian Wowk for forwarding it to me. - KQB ]

Recently Steve Bridge wrote:

>My personal, non-official guess, is that within 50 years it will be
>possible for a living, healthy human being to be placed in some form of
>very-long term (if not technically "permanent") biostasis and be revived
>with no ill effects.
Thanks for for non-official guess Steve ;) and for such a unexpectedly
full response. With all respect Steve your answer was not to the question I
was trying to ask. Let me clarify. My question is far less demanding on our
technology. I am not requiring initially a reversible process; only damage-
free entry into biostasis, the critical first step as I see it. We then rely
on future technology to restore function etc. To me this is *the* question:
how far away is our current technology from an ideal biostasis technique.

Without some *measure* of our capability I fear that any discussion will
be highly subjective and open to misinterpretation either by those in favour
or against it. A table like this would help me to understand the current
state of practice, perhaps you can correct and complete it:

    Biostasis       Damage due      Duration of
    Technique       to technique    Biostasis       Notes
 
    Cremation       100%            N/A             For completeness ;)
    Burial          99%             100 years?      Bones, DNA only ... ?
    Dry Ice         5%?             1 year?         Old technique
    Vitrification   1%?             Indefinite?     Current technique?
    Fixation & Vit. 0.1%?               "           Proposed    "
    Ideal           0%              Indefinite      Complete preservation
 
WARNING the above table is for discussion purposes only, and most likely has
no resemblance to fact.

>Real suspended animation may be performed without freezing,
>Vitrification, or even significant cooling.  Eric Drexler and others
>have proposed that this might be accomplished through very elaborate,
>rapid, and precise chemical fixation.
Yes, it was in Drexler's, "Engines of Creation" that I first came across
these fascinating ideas of biostasis and cellular repair stated so
elegantly. On page 134 Drexler claims that: "Fixation *together* with
vitrification seems adequate to ensure long term biostasis." I gather from
what you say that this method has not been explored, why not?

>We still don't know what the biological criteria is for a
>recoverable identity, and probably won't know for at least a decade.
By identity do you mean memory, or personality or something else?

>And all current patients have at least some kind of ischemic and freezing
>injury which will have to be repaired ...
Ah now this is closer to my question, so how extensive is this damage?

I shall resist following up on more of your points here Steve,
have no fear I have them preserved in my database, all I need now is the
time ...

Who knows, that may be one excuse unavailable in the future :)

              Hmmm, maybe time I had a new signature?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3211