X-Message-Number: 3508
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 94 20:36:16
From: Bridge Steve <>
Subject: CRYONICS Neuro vs. Whole Body
To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, Alcor
December 18, 1994
In reply to: Message: #3496 - Cloning and Neurosuspension
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:02:19 -0800
From: (Martin R. Olah)
>I've read with interest the posts explaining that identical twins, and
>therefore clones, are not truly identical.
>Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't sound like good news for those
>cryonicists signed up for neurosuspension. Is it believed that the brain
>will offer enough clues as to hormonal balance, spinal cord conditions,
>etc?
>Or is this all considered too minor of a concern? Minor enough to forgo a
>more conservative whole body suspension?
>Thanks for any help answering these questions,
> O Martin
Martin, questions like these place "neuro vs. whole body" in the top
three of all long-term cryonics arguments. We've been debating this at
least since the first neurosuspension in 1975 (two years before I became
involved in cryonics), and the right answer still isn't clear. I can give
you my personal perspective here and others will no doubt do the same.
NOTE: Alcor's official position is to give people either option and
let them decide. In general, we take the position that neurosuspension is
likely to work just as well as whole body suspension (non-cryonicists
would say "just as badly.").
The other two top cryonics arguments (at least for my purposes here;
I recognize that there are many others) are "What organization do I
choose?" and "How do I pay for this?" In all three cases, the cryonicist
has to weigh a lot of factors. All choices have risks.
For example, we don't know which organizations will be in existence
30 years from now, much less which will have done the best job at
suspending and caring for patients. Possibly several organizations could
be called "the best choice" at any particular time in the next three
decades, as personnel, procedures, income, and other factors change from
time to time. The key is to decide which organization will be the "right"
one *when it is your turn to be suspended.* If you are fairly young now,
that makes your choice even harder (although it at least gives you time to
play a role in making your group the best over time).
Most people do not want to switch back and forth from organization to
organization every couple of years as one gains a bit over another. Most
people don't even like to change long distance companies each year, and
that can be done very simply. The paperwork for signing up with a
cryonics company can be fearsomely complex, and you might change your mind
again in a couple of years, if things don't work out like you want. So we
make our best guess and hope it was right.
Deciding on which suspension method to choose can be almost as
difficult; but it is easier to switch. IF.... you start with enough
funding in the first place.
I have chosen neurosuspension, even though I have enough funding for
whole-body. The factors I have weighed lead to me to think that:
1. So little is still known about the possible damage being done in
preparation and freezing today, and so little is known about the nature of
memory and identity, that we really can't tell how well identity is
preserved by either suspension method.
2. Patients dying today usually will undergo an immense amount of damage
and destruction while they are *still alive*, in the last few weeks of
their life. (Possible future choices of suspension before legal death
would prevent much of this damage, of course).
3. We are a long way from defeating aging, which does further damage
(sometimes severe) to many of the patients even before their terminal
illnesses.
4. We know we are a long way from perfect suspended animation. It is
very clear that today's suspension procedures do additional damage,
probably extensive in many or even most cases.
5. It seems very likely to me that patients frozen by today's methods
under today's legal restrictions will incur so much damage to their bodies
that even whole body patients may need practically complete replacement of
everything except their brains. In fact, it is likely (although the jury
is still out on this) that most whole body patients today have cracks in
their spinal cords which will require at least repair of connections in
the future.
From that point of view, today's whole body patients may be the
practical equivalent of neuropatients.
6. Given that technical estimate, I believe the worst risks (the ones we
have any choice over, at least) facing cryonics patients today have
nothing to do with neuropreservation vs. whole body. I think the biggest
risks are:
a. Will Alcor be able to do or fund the research necessary to FIND
OUT whether the information has been saved and to revive the patients
someday?
b. Will Alcor survive as an organization so the patients stay frozen,
no matter what condition they are currently in?
c. Will Alcor keep improving as an organization so that later
suspensions are better than today? (This is less an individual risk than
a shared group risk. If I deanimate today, maybe I can help your
suspension be better. But if YOU deanimate today, you can help MY
suspension be better. This attitude requires a bit broader definition of
self interest than many people use.)
7. The cost of keeping a whole body patient in suspension is
approximately 3.5 times greater than the storage cost for a neuropatient.
For a neuropatient with $50,000 of insurance, Alcor places between $17,235
and $24,828 (depending on upfront expenses) into the Patient Care Fund.
For a whole body patient with $120,000 of insurance, we place between
$61,634 and $71,634 into the PCF.
6. So if one can afford $120,000 in life insurance, it seems to me that
the wisest course to take *at this time in cryonics history* is to have
the funding for whole body but select the neuro option. I would then
recommend stipulating in your suspension agreement that the extra funding
be divided between:
a) extra funding for the Patient Care Fund for security
b) research funding
c) operating funds
If I have the bad luck to need suspending in the next decade or so,
this decision helps to protect my brain against the risks in #6.
Remember, right now I don't think a whole body suspension necessarily
saves much more information than neurosuspension. Being frozen at all and
staying frozen is a higher priority.
--- To repeat you from the beginning of this message:
>Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't sound like good news for those
>cryonicists signed up for neurosuspension. Is it believed that the brain
>will offer enough clues as to hormonal balance, spinal cord conditions,
>etc?
Martin, we don't know the answer to this question yet. I think that
my IDENTITY is in my brain. If I come back with slightly different
fingerprints or physical skills or look a bit different, I can handle
that. Most of those things will be fixable eventually by different future
techniques, I suspect. And maybe I'll even look *better*, with straighter
teeth and nose. But if my brain is preserved, the synaptic links and the
underlying brain structure should be the same and I'll be pretty much the
good old Steve you all (and I all) know and love.
If my memories alone were to be saved in some non-flesh fashion and
someone tried to impose them on a brain structure unlike my own, I agree
that would only partly be me. (Note I am not saying that if my brain can
be completely characterized with 100% fidelity and a new identical brain
grown to those specifications, that this would not be me. Well, in fact,
I have some emotional problems even with that, but no logical ones. I am
saying here that memory probably isn't enough to make me ME.)
So my recommendations are:
If you can only afford $120,000 in life insurance, select
neurosuspension. Have the extra funds go toward keeping your brain frozen
and the organization healthy, instead of buying nitrogen for your spleen,
bladder, and kneecaps.
If you're still 98.6 F in 2004, look at the situation and re-
evaluate the risks. If cryonics and Alcor seems accepted and strong and
able to survive and progress without your extra $70,000, then you may wish
to switch to whole body suspension to take more information into the
future. This also assumes that the real costs have not increased much in
a decade. You don't want to START giving Alcor risks by selecting a
$120,000 whole body suspension when the real costs have, say, doubled.
If you can afford $200,000 in insurance today, choose whole body.
Have the extra funding allocated as I have suggested above.
These are my own personal perspectives on this question and how I
made my own decision. You have to evaluate the risks yourself and decide
on what should take priority today. You can change your mind later as
developments occur.
Steve Bridge
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3508