X-Message-Number: 65
From arpa!Xerox.COM!merkle.pa Fri Feb 24 09:13:50 PST 1989
Received: from Chardonnay.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 24 FEB 89 11:24:51 PST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 09:13:50 PST
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS: Drexler and Cryonics
to: 
Message-ID: <>
Status: R

This is a reposting of mail sent to: 

In article <> 
writes:

>I have recently completed the rather complicated process of arranging
>to have myself cryonically suspended in case I happen to "deanimate."
>Drexler has also made such arrangements, with the same organization
>I have chosen (the Alcor Life Extension Foundation).

This is incorrect.  Eric has not made suspension arrangements with any
cryonics organization.  As the leading proponent of nanotechnology, he is
frequently interviewed, quoted, photographed, etc.  (Recent articles in
Omni, Fortune, and some local magazines come to mind).  It is only
recently, thanks in large part to Eric's efforts, that nanotechnology is
taken seriously by a large part of the scientific community.  It is still
largely unknown to most of the public (though this is changing).  For many
people, their first introduction to nanotechnology will be an article
quoting Eric.  Asking a farmer in Iowa (or even some physicists) to take
nanotechnology seriously is already asking a great deal.  Asking him to
accept cryonics at the same time is often asking too much.  Indeed, from a
broad societal point of view, the important message in nanotechnology is
the sweeping societal changes that we need to prepare for.  The more
quickly this point is brought home, the better.  If a large majority of
people in a democratic society have no understanding of the potential
consequences when the first nano-beast is actually made, subsequent events
might unfold more quickly than the time required to educate them.  This
could have serious consequences.

A recent case in point was the internet worm -- something that had been
discussed and talked about for over a decade by people who knew it was
perfectly possible -- but which still caught the great majority of the
population by surprise.  Of course, a self-reproducing computer program can
cause only limited damage -- we can turn off the computer.  Some of the
consequences of nanotechnology could prove more difficult to control.

The fact that nanotechnology should make cryonics feasible is disturbing to
many people, and distracts them from the central message.  So, until
nanotechnology is better entrenched, it would seem prudent for its most
publicized proponent to avoid distracting them.

Of course, those of us not encumbered by the public spot-light are free to
take appropriate action, and many of us have.  I'd find it somewhat
embarrassing if my name came up in a conversation in the 22nd century
reminiscing about those poor folk who didn't quite figure things out in time.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=65