X-Message-Number: 4709
Date: 03 Aug 95 00:18:09 EDT
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: Part I Sweep of History and Odds


Bob Ettinger advances some interesting arguments about the the sweep of history;
principally that certain advances in human civilization have never been
extinguished from the time of their discovery.  He cites examples such as tool
use, metallurgy, agriculture, and so on.

He then goes on to note reasons for long-term optimism about the success of
cryonics.  

Actually, Bob and I differ little in the conclusions we've reached about the
general course of action to take and I agree with most of  his post.  

It has been interesting to me engage in this debate because Bob and I have
arrived at the same GENERAL course action from very different perspectives.
Bob's position is one of long-term optimism and (while he would disagree!) I
believe even qualified short-term optimism: if you seriously question the
workability of ANY aspect of cryonics as it must be practiced today, Bob will
automatically respond with many reasons for optimism, cautious or otherwise,
generally with lots of positive, but necessarily not rigorous, examples and
evidence which supports the survival of both today's patients generally, and
CI's in particular :).  I have no problem with this approach per se.   It is
different than mine, and it has its flaws.  But, so does my approach, and I'd

like to take a little time to look at both these starting points and and analyze
their weak and strong points.

I suppose I should state *my* starting point.  To me, what constitutes a core
element, a jumping off,  or starting point for concluding that cryonics should
be practiced or not, as the case may be, is a person's world-view: their
personal way of looking at the Universe.  The novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand
viewed the Universe as a fundamentally benign place and, like Bob, took a

melioristic approach to history.  Meliorism should be defined here: Christianity
is melioristic in the sense that history is perceived as moving in a positive

direction overall with an Omega Point  or Golden Age outcome that is by its very

nature salutary.  Rand would argue that reason is man's tool to achieve this end

and that further it is man's responsibility to achieve it.  Christians generally
see this endpoint as a gift from God requiring various qualifying states of
being, activities, beliefs, etc.

My view of things is different.  I see no hard evidence to support this
melioristic world-view.  By contrast, I see the Universe as a completely
indifferent place of enormous complexity.  The chances that "things will work
out right" (i.e., biological immortality or indefinitely long life)  in any
given person's situation are thus not only unknown but probably unkowable and,
for any given individual, probably low (more on this later).  I also believe

that the weight of evidence and our admittedly limited knowledge of physical law

do not bode well for the long-term success or survival of any given person alive
today.

While the above may represent "reality" it is not what some humans, such as
cryonicists, want.  Also, because the Universe is so complex and our knowledge
of it so limited, it can be argued that there is a chance that intelligence,
acting with "purpose" can change the odds and alter the situation to the point
that the desired outcome is actually reached, approached asymptotically, or at

least approached impressively relative to the starting point (in this last case,
in other words, few would argue that the difference between living a million
years and living only 80 years would NOT be an improvement, even if  living for
a million years fell "infinitely" short of the goal of living forever).


Living beings who desire to go on living at *any* cost thus really have only one
course of action open to them: assume that there is the possibility of success,
rationally analyze known problems and find answers, learn good general
principals for dealing with unknown and unpredictable contingencies, and get on
with pursuing immortality.  In this case the odds really don't matter.  If the

top of the individual's heirarchy of values is ultimately to remain alive at any
cost, then that is the only course of action open to him or her.

Genes have operated this way probably since shortly after life began.  This
blind (i.e., unconscious) communication of genes from one implementation (body)
to the next with the maximum fidelity achieveable at any price (i.e., any
available workable  pathway) is what has driven evolution.  It can be argued
that the default value system of genes and thus of the living things they are
implemented in (as an aggregate, anyway) is survival at any price.

In practice this means the creation of many different kinds of life forms, and
their destruction, as dictated by environmental changes, competition among
living things, etc.

My world-view is thus articulated above, with one major qualification which is,
admittedly, not shared by many or even most cryonicists: the willingness to
"survive" or continue living *at any price.*  

Cryonicists would argue (as would Objectivists with reasoning capability)  that
the *at any price* clause is absoultely essential and that to even imagine
sacrificing life for *anything* that does not result in survival is an
oxynmoron: how can you hold any values if you are dead?  Only living things can
hold values, therefore the root value from which all other values flow is life.
Ipso facto, life is the  ultimate value and it is the goal of all (conscious)
living things to stay alive. Period.

I will not pursue the philosophical subtleties of this worldview further here.
I will simply note that while my desire may be for unlimited life, I remain at
best an agnostic and (in reality) a deep skeptic about the achieveability of my
desire.  If price becomes an issue, then I become even more skeptical.  (Price
here can be defined in many ways: for instance there are some people who are
unwilling to be cryopreserved because loss of loved ones, friends, and future
shock are (perceived by them anyway) to be too high a cost to pay.)

In my opinion arguments from people like Bob about the sweep of history are of
modest utility, but do not prove anything.  The fact that certain features of
human civilization have never been eradicated since they were first discovered,
such as agriculture, metallurgy, etc. is nice to know, but ultimately doesn't
mean very much.  For instance, I could argue, I think persuasively, that a) the
time-scale (baseline) used by Bob  is not long enough, and b) the disruptive
events experienced by humanity so far (i.e., since the start of human
civilization) have not been great enough to result in either human annihilation
or loss of the basic technologies for civilizations of which Bob speaks.


Human civilization is about 10K years old (some might argue 20-50K) and this, by
both evolutionary and geological timescales, is an eyeblink.  

More to the point, careful analysis of the history of life shows at least two
cataclysmic events which resulted in the loss of many basic phylogenetic
characteristics and simplification of life not only in terms of variety, but
also in terms of fundamental chacteristics (followed by an explosion of new

forms).  To use an analogy: gills are invented and that's that as Bob would say.

Well, if the disruptive activity is great enough, that is NOT that, and gills go
away and all you see are microbes. Further, if the disruptive event is greater
still (Sol goes Nova) you see NOTHING.  No life.


So,  Bob and I have arrived at the "same endpoint" i.e., that cryonics should be
pursued because life is a core if not THE core value and there is no other
reasonable alternative.  However, this is NOT the whole story. 

To use an extreme example someone who believes the oddsof indefinite survival
are very good personally, who views the universe as a benign place and who just
generally has a happy-go-lucky attitude will behave very differently than
someone who views the Universe as uncaring, complicated, and therefore a very
dangerous place for a creature that requires a very tight set of environmental
criteria in order to remain alive: criteria which are rare in a complex
universe.

This notwithstanding, being happy -go-lucky does have its strong points:

1) Such a person is very unlikely to suffer paralyzing depression.
2) Such a person is perhaps less likely to be discouraged or distracted.
3) Such a person will be socially easier (less uptight, less threatened) to
interact with.
4)Such a person will find it easier to motivate and recruit others to his/her
world-view because the (likely) biological default must inevitably be towards
optimism (=continued action, possible way out of seemingly hopeless situations)
versus pessimism (despair=inaction, certain death/failure).

However, there are disadvantages here too:

1) Such a person may be insufficently motivated to examine problems and think
about possible complications or obstacles to staying alive.
2) Optimism which does not "pan out" or hold up to reality may cause
disaffection and loss of others brought into the quest for extended life when
their expectations are not met.
3) Such a person will necessarily be handicapped in basic structuring of a
survival plan, since their default will be to build insufficient reserves or
"design space" into their plans.

4) Such a person will be inclined to progressively warp their view of reality to

meet their needs by rejecting "unfavorable" information and favoring "favorable"
information; this is particularly dangerous in situations where feedback from
the system is delayed; and, in my opinion, the problem gets much worse the
longer the feedback loop is.

The pessimist also has problems:

1) Extreme pessimism or even a "realistic" assessment of chances of cryonics
working and immortality or indefintely long lifespans being achieved may cause

others to perceive the cost as too high for the potential return.  (Not everyone
places an infinite or even very high value on the possibility of  indefinite
personal survival; here I mean that many people will choose not to spend a
significant amount of their time, effort and money  (in the process sacrificing
much of  the quality of life NOW) on what they perceive as a negligably small
chance of survival or even of significant personal life-span extension.
2) Pessimism in many, maybe even most people, generally erodes action and
results in paralysis.

3) Excessively conservative estimates of what is required to achieve the goal or
some part of it (such as financial buffers, safety requirements for long term
cryogenic care, or elaborate up-front preparation) may exclude many indivduals
from helping/participating, may result in contra-survival allocation of
resources, and thus result in failure of the program.
4) Pessimism or excessive conservatism may prevent risk-taking and stifle
innovation.


Ideally, what is needed is someone who can retain the motivation and recruitment

skills of the optimist, make rational tradeoffs of risk versus benefit using the
"right"  degree of pessimism and conservatism, and so on.  


At this point a person may reasonably throw up his/her arms and say: well, who's
right and how do you know who's right and what degree or mix of pessimism,
optimism, etc. is appropriate?


The short answer to this question is that there is probably no way to know right
now.

The longer answer is that the sweep of history and the sweep of evolution give
us some clues.

What are those clues?:


1) Systems with marginal design space fare very poorly.  In both the natural and

artificial (human engineered) world there is redundancy and extra capacity built
into the system to accomodate transient loading beyond the day-to-day

requirements.  Anyone who has bought a cheap can opener, tried to scoop hard ice
cream with a teaspoon, or tried to sit on a cardboard box or a poorly designed
"cheap" chair will understand the concept of design with insufficient attention
to transient, unusual, or continued loading beyond the endurable parameters of
the system.

2) The most robust systems copy themselves, and, further, vary parameters of
design or distribution of the copies to provide the optimum chance of survival.

3) The very best systems provide for a great deal of flexibility in response as

well as plenty of reserves.  Humans are arguably are at the top of the heap here
since we and we alone as living things have veto power over the whole biosphere

in the form of nuclear weapons and emerging technologies (such as nanotechnology
in all its forms).

4) Over long time scales catastrophic failure must be assumed as a given, and,
where possible, contingent plans made.

5) Highly successful systems are multi-pathed and avoid complexification and

associated vulnerabilities  .An example here, which is quite contrary to Bob's ,
is probably worth pointing out.


Civilization and human population were growing quite rapidly prior to the Middle
Ages.  There were striking technological advances, especially in maritime
capabilities and commerce.  This lead to the opening up of remote areas of
formerly isolated people to commercial and social interaction with each other.

Unfortunately, it was quite impossible for people of that time to realize that
something very adverse, about  which they could know nothing,  was about to
happen to them as a direct result of these advances.  This event was the
transmission of yersinia pestis via  the shipborne Norwegian  rat from China to
Europe.  Yersina pestis is the causative organism for the Black Death (the
Plague).

The death rate in Europe overall was 50% for at least two generations following
exposure of Europe's naieve population to this etiologic agent, with heavy but
more localised losses occuring at intervals until modern times. Further, the
death rate was highest in cities and major areas of commerce and intellectual

activity where crowding and poor sanitation favored rapid spread of the disease.

This resulted in a profound disruption of civilization, loss of many basic ideas
and techniques, heavy loss of  the most advanced technologies and their
practitioners, and a long period of stagnation and minimal technological and
social progress.

Ironically it was the Black Death that both created and (more arguably) ended
the Middle Ages.  It created it by encouraging a surprisingly Ettingerian view
of history: the ascendancy of Christianity with its meliorism and the expected
second coming of Christ, and the accompanying de-emphasis on the temporal value
of life. Our Friend of the future will make everything all right, not to worry,
death, disease and suffering are all in God's plan.

It may also be argued that the Black Death played a major role in ending the

darkness and restarting technological advance and social liberalization since it
was an outbreak of Plague in London that sent a young Isaac Newton packing to
the family's country estate at Woolsthorpe to wait out theepidemic.  While at
Woolsthorpe Newton was very bored and, while tring to avoid the Plague, amused
himself by integrating physics, creating the calculus, and generally bringing
some of the most powerful tools of the scentific method to human civilization.
I am being somewhat simplistic here, but only a little so.  Newton was not by
any means alone in these endeavors; but he was the most spectacularly
successful.  Perhaps the only greater mind to have lived which history records
was Linus Pauling who made major contributions in biology, physics, chemistry

and the social sciences (Pauling had a triple helix model of DNA and would, most
of his scientific contemporaries agree, have immediately unravelled the true
double helix  structure of DNA well ahead of Watson and Crick had he been able
to go to England and attend the conference at which Rosalind Franklin's X-ray

diffraction data was presented.  He was refused a visa to attend that conference
by the Federal Government of the United States because of his anti-nuclear
weapons activities.)

So, what does this tell us about cryonics and how to know what's the proper
course of action to take?

CONTINUED IN SWEEP OF HISTORY AND ODDS, PART II


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4709