X-Message-Number: 6684
From: Brian Wowk <>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 00:31:52 -0500
Subject: Science vs. Technology

Brian Shock <> writes:
 
>One of my concerns regarding the "Prometheus Project" idea is that its
>proponents seem to ignore the difference between science and
>technology.
 
        One of my concerns regarding cryonics is that its proponents
seem to change the definitions of science and technology in whatever 
manner best suits justifying the status quo.  (More on this later.) 
 
>The Project's ten-year deadline obviously derives from JFK's moonshot
>goal in the 1960's.  
 
        Not at all.  The estimate of 10 years and 10 million dollars
is a conservative round-up based on the observation of the dramatic
progress that has been made with other organs on similar timescales
and budgets.  The integrity with which kidney's can now be preserved 
makes what cryonicists do to brains today shameful by comparision.
 
>...his (Kennedy's) goal of reaching the Moon by decade's end seems 
>almost trivial in hindsight.
 
        *Everything* is trivial in hindsight.  Saying that they
already knew men could survive in space, and that rockets worked,
is like me saying we already know memory can survive without
metabolism, and organs can survive loading and unloading of 
vitrifiable CPA concentrations.  But this is all a red herring.
In hundreds of pages of Prometheus discussion thus far, the Apollo
project was only mentioned once.  I don't know why you are spending
multiple paragraphs debunking this weak and almost irrelevant analogy. 
 
 
>If someone can show that Prometheus needs no scientific breakthroughs...
 
        Define "scientific breakthrough"?  Obviously calling reversible  
brain cryopreservation a breakthrough is begging the question.
 
        For years cryonicists have argued that nanotechnology is
"inevitable" because it is a matter of "mere technology" with no
fundamental scientific obstacles.  And since suspended animation  
of the entire body(!) is implicitly possible with nanotechnology,
that means suspended animation requires no scientific breakthroughs.
Q.E.D.  
        
        This is what I mean about changing definitions to suit  
arguments.  Cryonics organizations seem to have no problem telling
people that nanotechnology is inevitable within 100 to 200 years (or
less), and using that as justification for spending $500,000 a year
on operations and promotion of horrible freezing technology.  Yet when 
it is suggested a similar sum be raised and spent on achieving much
more modest (but "mission critical") near-term objectives, pejorative
lectures about the difference between science and technology are
generated.    
 
 
> All cryonicists favor research toward reversible suspended animation.  
 
        Then let's *do* some serious research toward reversible
suspended animation.
 
 
> Valid scientific research is methodical,
> empirical, conservative, and demanding of unpredictable time and
> money.  Has the Prometheus Proposal so far answered to this
> description?
 
        If instead of citing the progress of similar projects, 
developing research plans, and setting reasonable goals, someone just 
threw up their hands and said, "I have no idea what to do, or how long it 
will take, but please give me money" that would be better science?
 
        Saying that this can *probably* be done in ten years is not "hype".  
It is the opinion of professionals with a track record of planning 
cryopreservation research, setting budgets, setting goals, and  
DELIVERING on them.  The fact that cryobiological knowledge has
now reached a point that such detailed plans and judgements can be
made is the *strength* of the Project, not a weakness.

***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Human Cryopreservation Services   
   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6684