X-Message-Number: 5767
From:  (Brian Wowk)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley)
Date: 18 Feb 96 18:04:45 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>

In <> Owen Lewis <> writes:

>In article <>  "Brian Wowk" writes:

>>The money of cryonics patients is not kept in mattresses.  It is invested
>>in stocks, bonds, and other instruments that drive the world economy.
>>Having large amounts of wealth "tied up indeterminately in cryonics linked
>>trusts" would be an economic boon!  Instead of being spent on frivolous
>>short-term consumption, this wealth would be invested by money managers in
>>companies providing jobs and long-term economic growth.

>I see. It would not then be invested to maximise a return to the cryonic 
>'patient'?

	It is an economic truism that money invested to maximize 
long-term return also maximizes world economic growth.  You obviously
disagree with this, but there is no need for us to debate the point.  If
you are going to argue that tying money up in cryonics trusts (and world
financial markets) is not socially good, you must argue with respect
*what actually happens to money not so invested*, not with respect
to some hypothetical ideal.  Why do you believe that heirs would be
any more charitable or socially responsible than world financial
markets?  

>Or do I misunderstand? Is the capital and income to be gradually consumed by
>the costs of management and cryonic preservation? And, being prepared to take 
>a thousand year view, how say you on the effects of monetary inflation over 
>such a period? What happens when the fund no longer retains sufficient value 
>to maintain the inflated costs of preservation? Have you prepared a 
>sensitivity analysis? Have you published it? From your preoccupation in 
>investing others' money in good works one might assume not.

	Many articles have been written on this subject over the years
in various cryonics publications (although none are available online,
unfortunately).  Here at CryoCare, we set our funding levels based 
on an assumed real rate of return of 2% annually.  Historically,
several asset classes (especially common stocks) have demonstrated
returns far in excess of this.

>However, you are right in that the monetary concerns are, for me, only 
>secondary to the objection that there is no evidence that cryonic 
>preservation will now or ever allow a human to be resuscitated after years 
>of being frozen.

	If you check out The Cryobiological Case for Cryonics at 

http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/casecryo.txt

you will see plenty of evidence that freezing (even by crude means)
preserves viability of many different cell types, even neural tissue.
And viability is not even a requirement for cryonics to ultimately
work.  What cryonics does is PRESERVE THE FINE STRUCTURE OF THE BRAIN
INDEFINITELY.  Electron microscopy shows this conclusively.  The
missing ingredient, for which we must wait, is advanced nanotechnology
for scanning the personality information contained in this stucture,
and then restoring (or off-loading to alternative media) it to active
expression.

	Alternatively, if cryobiologists succeed in perfecting 
reversible cryopreservation of the brain within the next several
years, no nanotechnology will be needed at all.  The brains of
cryonics patients will be able to be preserved and restored to
perfect viability at will, with revival awaiting more modest
developments in cloning and tissue regeneration.
  
***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Your Gateway to the Future        
   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5767