X-Message-Number: 6963
From: Terry Lambert <>
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: A Suggestion
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 02:41:50 -0700
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>

Brian Wowk wrote:
] >Cryonics seems (to me) to be in a very literal dilemma (di.lemma);
] >on one hand, it wants to preserve gross anatomical structure as
] >well as possible, and funds research in that direction.  On the
] >other, it wants the suspension to be as reversible as possible --
] >yet there is little research in that direction.
] 
]         In several posts you suggest that cryonicists have
] given excessive attention to structure instead of function.

Not quite correct.

I have suggested, both in couched and not-so-couched terms, that
it is my opinion that cryonicists have been operating from a basis
of directed self interest.

That is, the apparent goal of most cryonics research has been
improved preservation protocols.  Ideally, for the cryonicist,
this would asymptotically approach non-reversible (in light of
current technology) cryogenic biostasis, with the hope that
this would later be convertable, via some future technology,
into reversible cryogenic biostasis.

This benefits the individual cryonicist because it affords him
or her the highest probability that they will be personally
recoverable -- assuming a later Deux Ex Machina for the revival.


What I question is whether, in the transition from hypothermic
to cryogenic cooling, if a sucessfully reversible protocol will
look like current trans hypothermic protocols, as they are
practiced by any of the existing cryonics organizations.


Because this is an unknown, it is quite possible that the most
effective approach to achieving reversible biostasis (which we
agree is the goal of the organizations, even if the individual
cryonicists are modivated from self preservation) would be an
approach involving incremental steps.  Each step itself being
perfected to reversibility prior to advancing to the next step.


[ ... ]

]         Perfected suspended animation (of the entire body)
] has been the ultimate goal of school #1 cryonicists from
] day one.  As proof I offer you the fact that NOBODY in the
] world can take animals down to near 0'C for longer periods
] of time (and still get them back) than cryonicists.  This
] research was done by cryonicists, paid for by cryonicists,
] and now used by cryonicists to get cryonics patients to the
] point of CPA perfusion and freezing in a condition from which
] they could still be revived TODAY if we wanted to.

With the exception that glycerol is toxic, of course, so that
you couldn't revive them today.

Again, I don't disagree with the ultimate goal; I only note
that the path to achieve it may be suboptimal because of the
purely selfish desire of cryonicists to have the best safety
net possible as quickly as possible, and the ultimate goal is
a medical technology, not a better saftey net.

I don't deny their right to selfishness; after all, they are
the ones paying the bills.  I continue to note it, and its
obvious effect on favoring saftey net research over reversible
(cryogenic?) biostasis research.  The actions are at odds with
the state goals.

]         The dichotomy you describe between improving the
] chances of today's patients vs. future patients has never
] existed.

Then why has research been primarily directed at preservation
instead of reversible biostasis?


] >The Visser method, being a cryobiological approach (very much
] >like approaching nanotechnology from the other side of the
] >molecular barrier) intends to incrementally increase what can
] >be preserved.  In this way, it is a second route to the more
] >leglected goal of cryonics -- the group goal.
]
]         I think it's important we realize that Visser advanced
] organ preservation (if her method works at slow cooling rates),
] but certainly did not originate the ideas of organ preservation
] or suspended animation.  These things were being pursued by
] cryonicists, and advances being made, long before she entered
] the field.

I agree.  Much of the skepticism shown of the announce results
is (obviously) wholly unfounded because of this.

] >I have read (preliminarily) the Promtheus literature, and I have
] >to say brain preservation clearly implies brain preservation
] >as the goal, not a way-station on the road to reversible biostasis.
] 
]         The goal has always been (for all cryonicists) to
] continue with the rest of the problem once the brain is beat.
] This has not been explicitly stated because that goal will
] require time and money far beyond the original Prometheus budget.
] But perhaps this ultimate goal should be more explicit to avoid
] these misunderstandings.

It was obvious to me from casual association with members of
the community that the priorities are:

	(1) build a saftey net
	(2) work on reversible biostasis

The limited funding make it intuitively obvious that the lower
priority goal must languish.


Perhaps it *should* be more explicit; however, I can assure you
that there has been no misunderstanding on my part because of
a lack of explicit statement to that effect.


] > Brains ar on the bottom of the list because they
] >can't be reliably transplanted.
] 
]         This implies the brain is the least important organ in
] the body.

No.  It implies a resonable definition of "reversible" which
does not require a Deux Ex Machina -- faith -- to justify.


] Suppose you roll into an emergency room suffering from severe
] trauma, with blood flow to multiple organs compromised.
] Which organ do you want blood flow and oxygenation restored
] to first?  Do you cross clamp the common carotid or the
] descending aorta?  The decision will determine whether you
] will recover as a paraplegic or brain-dead organ donor (but
] with good organs).

The situation is not analogous, despite the tidy picture of
cryonics as an ambulance to some future emergency room.

Until such time as it is possible to revive a cryonics "patient",
even if as a parapalegic, the analogy fails.  It fails from the
revival technology faith requirement inherent in the design of
a saftey net.  It is entirely possible that the "safety net"
constraint on the problem soloution will prevent the use of a
shorter path (revolutionary vs. evolutionary).  It may in fact
sufficiently constrain the problem tothe point that the Deux
Ex Machina becomes a hard requirement for reversal.  I'd like
to avoid that if I could, since it means figuratively putting
all of my eggs in a single basket.


]         The bottom line is that suspended animation of the body
] will have to proceed one organ at a time.  It should therefore
] logically begin with the one and only organ that is irreplaceable.
] Even if you successfully preserve every organ in
] the body EXCEPT the brain, the technology will be totally useless
] for medical time travel until brain preservation is addressed.

I, again, question your first assumption.  Why must you invoke
a linear search of the soloution space?  For the benefit of the
saftey net.  Why not just admit it; after all, I'm as selfish
as the next guy; it makes me no less (or more) likely to sign
up with a cryonics organization.  Except that if you are willing
to be honest with yourself, it gives me a higher confidence that
you'll be honest with me.


					Regards,
                                        Terry Lambert
                                        
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6963