X-Message-Number: 5638 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 96 11:15:51 From: Steve Bridge <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Bacteria/neurosuspension To CryoNet (and sci.cryonics) >From Steve Bridge January 19, 1996 In reply to: Message #5621 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 11:33:06 +0100 From: John de Rivaz <> Subject: Lethal Bacteria I hope that the BBC's (or John's) characterization of this problem as "a disaster that threatens the collapse of Britain's hospital service" turns out to be media hyperbole. On the other hand, the crisis of drug- resistant bacteria is perhaps the most immediate risk to the populations of developed countries, and will be more widespread than AIDS. If you really want both a shock to your system and a well-written, thoroughly researched account of just how vulnerable we all are, I highly recommend Laurie Garrett's book, *The Coming Plague.* It is a very long book, with accounts of the various plagues of this century, with many heroes and great stories; but also with the understanding that, for now, at least, we are NOT winning the war with nature. While it isn't exactly Ms. Garrett's point, what I got from the book was a simple credo: We can't ever hope to defeat disease organisms; we can only hope eventually to change *ourselves* to eliminate the concept of "disease." Also, in reply to: Message #5622 From: Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:30:02 -0500 Subject: SCI.CRYONICS neuro/Pretoria Bob Ettinger points out: >4. I have mentioned this before, but nobody has noticed. If/when we >achieve reversible-on-demand suspension, then (assuming it comes soon or >at any rate before full regeneration technology) nobody will want neuro >as first choice, obviously. The trap here is for those neuro sign-ups (in >fact all sign-ups) who have funded at a minimum level. It is going to be >very sticky if we have perfect suspension available but not affordable >for existing or potential members. (Of course, if perfect methods are >available, perfect neuro would still be infinitely better than nothing.) I do remember Bob saying this before and it is an excellent point. I forgot about it when I wrote my article for *Cryonics* magazine. This is another good reason to set up your funding as I recommended in the article: "I recommend you consider the solution I have chosen myself. At least for the next ten years, in these early days of cryonics, if you can afford $120,000 in insurance or other funds, then plan for that amount but choose neurosuspension. If it happens that you need to be suspended in the next decade, instead of spending money on keeping all of that extra mass frozen, let those extra funds go toward research, marketing, legal funds, and otherwise making sure your organization can thrive. If you're still kicking up your heels in ten years, and Alcor is so rich and powerful that your measly extra thousands won't make a bit of difference, then you can reconsider. If it won't harm your organization, you could switch your choice to whole body and take the extra information along. If you want whole body suspension today, I recommend funding it at a level of $200,000, for the same reasons. For insurance, the difference in premiums won't be that much; and it could make all the difference in the world to your cryonics group -- which could mean all the time in the world to you." Obviously the purely financial considerations will be different for Cryonics Institute members, with its lower price; but I think the overall point is well taken. Just in case easily reversible suspended animation is developed in time for you to use it, you want to have your finances arranged so you CAN choose the whole body option. I still feel that neurosuspension is likely to be equal in result to whole body suspension, based on the technology available if you are suspended *today.* Steve Bridge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5638