X-Message-Number: 6696
Subject: Prometheus, molecular nanotechnology, and Frankenstein
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 09:49:57 -0500
From: Will Dye <>

I guess you could call me a nanotech "true believer".  I see 
no _direct_ justification of the Prometheus project, because the 
certainty that nanotech will be developed as (Drexler) projected 
is so high that our efforts would be far better spent supporting 
Foresight than Prometheus.  

Yet, I applaud Prometheus wholeheartedly, and I believe that 
it is a worthwhile project that will probably be of great 
benefit to cryonics.  I would back my enthusiasm with a pledge, 
if I only had the money to do it.  

Why the support?  Because of all the people who will die before 
technology develops to a point where more people accept cryonics.  
In my (still ongoing) efforts to convince my wife to accept 
cryonics, I've found that at least some people have what I call 
"the Frankenstein point".  Up to a certain point, attempts to 
save life are OK.  After that point, the attempts to save a life 
have gone so far that the "life" (in a very broad sense) is 
excessively jeapordized by the attempts.   

Those who care more about the broader concepts of "life", such 
as our worldview & relationships to others, will be far more 
likely to have a Frankenstien point that is closer to the 
status quo.  Those who have a more, um, concise concept of 
life, such as strong individualists, will likely have a 
Frankenstien point that allows for more experimentation.  
Even the strong individualists, however, will draw the line 
somewhere, and use the same _kinds_ of reasons for drawing them.  

It's crucial to note that the Frankenstein point _is_ dynamic.  
People _do_ change their minds, even if it seems like they 
dig in and won't change.  Someone who claims that cryosuspension 
is "unholy", or "bizarre" is probably digging in their heels 
because they've seen the idea as beyond the Frankenstein point, 
and _then_ they formulated the argument.  Note the timeline.  
Even in matters of supposed science, people will generally 
believe _first_, and only _then_ formulate a rationalization 
of their belief.  There's plenty of research and history to 
support this.  That's why (good) scientists rely on reproducible 
experiments, and (good) Fundamentalists rely on Scripture.  
(That's right: fundamentalism, like science, is in essence an 
attempt to get _away_ from purely belief-based arguments, but 
that's another post...)

Once someone has decided that a procedure is beyond the 
Frankenstein point, arguing with them about the subject can 
be, to say the least, frustrating.  But perhaps my efforts have 
been misguided.  It seems that what my wife has been hearing 
is something like "well, yes, it's unholy, but unholy isn't so 
bad".  That's not what I'm saying, of course, but it may be 
getting received that way becuase my arguments have addressed 
her list of objections.  Naturally, if I attack the objections, 
it may seem like I'm saying that the goals behind the objections 
are not good goals.  Recall I assert that we all draw the line 
somewhere, and use the same _kinds_ of reasons to draw it.  

A better approach, I hope, is to stop responding with 
a point-by-point refutation of arguments that were haphazardly 
dragged in after the crucial decision was established, and 
start addressing the core of the issue.  What is the list of 
things people associate with Frankenstien operations?  Include 
the good objections (is there much of "you" left?  What about 
quality of life?), as well as the not-so-good objections 

(it isn't routine, it's done by renegades, etc.done it).  Ok, now show how 
cryonics is different.  
Every little item helps.  

Organ transplants were viewed with concern, and even opposed, 
by a very broad base of people, including many doctors.  Initial 
failures did much to encourage the skepticism.  What turned it 
around?  A lot of little successes.  Each progressive step 
was a bit of good news that encouraged the view that transplants 
were OK, and embarassed the view that they were not OK.  As 
transplantation became more routine, the percieved Frankenstein 
point changed.  For most people, a Frankenstien operation is 
never a routine one, and it's done by people they don't know.  
As the operations became routine, they were less likely to be 
classified as "Frankenstein".  As human interest stories appeared 
in the papers, and friends or relatives had transplants, the 
Frankenstein point shifted.  

The point is that continuous small advances in cryonics will 
go a long way to gain acceptance of suspension.  Prometheus 
will hire "respectable" scientists, and provide a steady stream 
of progress reports.  I do trust that they will provide the bad 
news when necessary, but I also trust that there will be plenty 
of good results to report.  Each little victory will do much to 
shift the Frankenstein point in the minds of many.  Will it be 
a majority?  I don't know, but certainly it will be more than 
the meager numbers we have now.  As has been pointed out in 
previous posts, we shouldn't rely on convincing others.  But
it sure would be nice...

Good luck, Prometheus, Ms. Visser, Mr. Darwin, and every other 
effort to uncover a truth about the universe.  Every little 
victory helps.

--Will

-- 
William L. Dye (Will Dye)  | It's O.K. to be anal retentive, as long as all 
  | of the anuses that you retain are meticulously 
-or-   | sorted, arranged, categorized, & cross-indexed.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6696