X-Message-Number: 6106
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #5911 - #5916
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 23:07:26 -0700 (PDT)

Hi again!

I've been away working on Updates, PERIASTRON, my taxes, and a parallel 
programming system I hope someday to be very useful.

But I notice that Mr. Sharman continues to be the lawyer he was born to be ie.
trying to twist various statements made at various times so that a jury (not
present) will decide in his favor. Ho hum.

To one of Mr. Sharman's questions (I believe it was him) I will answer:
Depending on what you mean by nanotechnology, I may count as someone who is 
both a cryonicist and NOT an adherent. My problems come from statements such as
those made by HK Henson, to the effect that "we'll be able to place atoms 
anywhere physically possible". As someone who very early became aware of 
chemistry and biochemistry in studying cryonics, that statement says far less
than might seem. Chemistry is **** very **** important here. Nanotechnology 
will not allow us to make long stringy molecules out of helium, for instance.
Atoms want to behave in particular ways depending on the milieu they find 
themselves in; to ignore that is to ignore the work of many scientists 
over the last 2 centuries. He(sub)n is not a substance which is at all easy
to set up physically possible settings under which it can exist.

But I will also say that we have every reason to believe that our abilities
in chemistry, biochemistry, and all other ancillary sciences (such as 
physics ;) ) will increase enough for us to do what is required: manipulate
every cell in our frozen brains so as to repair the damage caused by freezing
and revive us (the temperature at which we do this repair, of course, will
be that found to be most useful given our technology). One way of thinking 
about nanotechnology is that it results from taking the limit in our 
understanding of chemistry and chemical technology. And frankly, after
looking at the damage and the present knowledge about such things as 
development and memory, it looks to me that we will need far less than the
limit. After all, by applying any drug we can influence every cell in our
body already... by which I DON'T mean that revival can be anything so 
simple, but I am pointing out that changing every cell in our body is 
far easier than it seems. What we need to work out now is a chemical 
technology capable of influencing these cells in the way we want for 
revival --- whether they are "alive" or not. If you want to name such a 
technology "nanotechnology" then go ahead --- but you are still doing 
chemistry.

I do strongly doubt that there is or will be any easy road to either 
understanding how we now think revival could happen or understanding how to 
revive us. Buzzwords only obscure the matter.

Finally, as to the issue of cost: at one time aluminum was very expensive.
But its cost meant that anyone who had a cheaper way to make it would 
make lots of money. And now it is inexpensive and almost everywhere. If
revival is very expensive at the time of its discovery, then the next
problem on the agenda for cryonics societies of THAT time will be to bring
down its cost. There is no indication that spectacularly rare materials
will be needed in more than nanoquantities at most. Cost will come down
with time: and the future is not one time but far more times than our
present history, with all the changes and advances that implies.

As for the survival of cryonics societies and those in their care for
long enough, we are not talking about people who have chosen cryonics as
the latest fad. We are talking about people who will do whatever they
find necessary to preserve their own opportunity to be suspended and keep
those now suspended in suspension. And ultimately that means that they 
are not loyal to their country or their party or any other such
transient group, but to their own lives and that of those in their care.
Just because of that, I think cryonics will survive and even in some cases
succeed ... and where it fails, that failure will come either to unlucky
individuals (yes, even an 85% success rate does not mean that everyone 
frozen will be revived. They might be destroyed in a raid, for instance)
or by physical laws. 

And as a general point about such survival, it's quite wrong to sit and
work out probabilities: the arithmetic isn't at issue, what is at issue
is the fact that we are doing something to influence our own fate. And
that can make such simple calculations quite wrong.

			Best and long long life to everyone,

				Thomas Donaldson
				


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6106