X-Message-Number: 7479
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 16:52:55
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: Darwin, death, and cryonics
To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge
January 10, 1997
Fish gotta swim.
Birds gotta fly.
Mike Darwin gotta talk
About how people die.
At cocktail parties such an obsession is disturbing. However,
cryonics ain't no damn cocktail party, and Mike's tendency to point out
the negative in our midst is useful and productive (when followed by
action rather than depression and hand-wringing).
After my own 20 years in cryonics, I pretty much agree with what Mike
has to say on this subject, with a few mild objections I will note in a
moment. But the basic point is correct:
If you are dying today, all cryonics groups today will give you what
is probably not a very good suspension. With some warning and cooperation
from your body and from a wide range of humans, the cryonics team can do
comparatively better. With no warning and a lot of distance between you
and the suspension team, you will get a terrible suspension, probably no
better than it would have been twenty years under similar circumstances.
What "not very good," "comparatively better," and "terrible" actually mean
from a *practical* viewpoint (e.g., your post-revival ability to remember
clearly what a nice guy I am) is completely unknowable today.
In my personal opinion, cryonic suspension (or preservation) is still
better than burial and cremation, although for some of us that may turn
out to be a symbolic defiance of death rather than a practical one. For
ME, having spent almost half my life deeply involved in this field, even a
symbolic defiance is worth something, because it may encourage others to
make it practical. Do not mistake that for meaning I am *satisfied* with
symbolic. I still want to see the future.
But cryonics progress is moving at a glacially slow pace. Even the
$50,000 a month that Mike Darwin says is going into 21st Century Medicine
and Biopreservation research is incredibly small for serious research.
And that is a factor of ten more than Alcor was able to spend this year.
Only the application of serious resources will even tell us whether or not
our problem is solvable, much less *how* to solve it. Right now that
means YOU CryoNet readers and other cryonicists need to up your
contributions -- or start contributing now.
That said, I will toss in a couple of disagreements or clarifications
with Mike's posts of the last couple of days.
> I believe altogether too much attention has been paid to the public
> relations aspects of cryonics, and far too little to the harder and far
> more important problem of achieving reversible brain cryopreservation.
I agree the balance is out of proportion; but here is *why* -- We
cannot do much research without MONEY and INTERESTED RESEARCHERS. Public
relations is absolutely necessary to promote several improvements that
lead to more research:
1. Adding more members increases the number of people willing to donation
funds and energy.
2. More members increases the likelihood that *other* people with the
funds and commitment of Saul Kent and Bill Faloon will become involved --
leading to more research. By the way, it is pretty clear that Saul and
Bill would not HAVE any money themselves without the ability to advertise
and do public relations.
3. More members increases the probability that new leaders will come
along to make sure that this endeavor doesn't run out of gas (or out of
liquid nitrogen). Most of the highly involved cryonics leaders and
researchers have gone through at least one major burn-out.
4. More public relations increases the general respectibility of cryonics
in the local community, improving the chances that more money and time
will be available to be spent on research than on legal conflicts. We
have certainly seen that in Arizona in the past three years.
5. More PR increases the general respectibility of cryonics within the
scientific and medical communities. Granted, *true, broad respect* will
only come with more research. But now (except for Society for Cryobiology
meetings) it is okay for most scientists and doctors to at least *talk*
about cryonics and explore whether or not it might work.
6. That in itself increases the odds that respectable scientists will
WANT to work with us -- if we had the money for research. I know of
several medical researchers here in Arizona who find the questions of
brain cryopreservation fascinating and who would love to work with us on
the problem -- but not for free.
7. Sufficient money would even allow us to penetrate the cryobiological
community. No currently full-time cryobiologist in the US, England, or
Canada is likely to take on a one- or two-year job in cryonics research;
because that would wreck his society membership with no prospects for
employment later. However, if we had funds to guarantee ten years of
employment, such as Paul Wakfer has proposed, a somewhat more adventurous
researcher might take the chance that successful work in cryonics would
enhance his career.
I had posted:
>> cases by a "Religious Objection to Autopsy." If you have signed one of
>> these forms -- and someone will make the local coroner or M.E. *aware*
>> of it -- the only reasons an autopsy can be performed is evidence of a
>> dangerous contagious disease or homicide. Even then, the law requires
>>the coroner to make the least damaging examination necessary.
Mike replied:
> This is a worthwhile suggestion. But it does not stop the ME from
> taking custody of the person and delaying by many hours the start of
> even basic conservative steps such as application of ice. Steve also
> uses the word "evidence" the correct word is "suspicion" and it extends
> not only to homicide in the narrowest sense, but to manslaughter and
> suicide.
While the Religious Objection form might not on its own stop the ME
from taking custody, it *can* -- combined with the right discussion with
cryonics personnel and, especially, prior notice to the ME -- inform him
of situations that he doesn't want to get involved with. Each case is
different, and this is only one weapon in our battle to save members. But
there is no reason to send your suspension team into battle without all of
the available legal weaponry.
And various court cases have clarified the wording as "reasonable
suspicion," which usually requires some evidence great enough to persuade
a court. If you have a signed R.O. form, the ME has to go to court to get
permission to do an autopsy. If you have no signed form, WE have to go to
court to *prevent* an autopsy. That can be a significant difference in
the ME decision on how to proceed. Amazingly, there are even medical
examiners who would LIKE to find a legal excuse not to autopsy cryonics
patients.
And finally, Mike said in Message #7463:
>Steve Bridge writes that he knows of only one Alcor patient not frozen
>who had cryopreservation arrangements in place at the time of death.
>This statement is misleading at best, and to be more frank, is simply not
>the case.
NO, that's NOT what I said. Please don't criticize me for what I do
not say. What I really DO say should offer you a large enough field for
criticism. Here is my previous quote to which Mike objected.
>> Also, it depends on what you call a "cryonicist." The
>> circumstances are much worse for people who want to be frozen but who
>> didn't get around to signing up with anyone in advance. They may be
>> somewhat better for those people who are signed up today. For example,
>> I am only aware of one *signed-up* cryonicist in the 90's who died
>> without being frozen. There have been other people who dropped out of
>> cryonics for one reason or another who were not frozen, of course.
I think that is pretty clear. Note the qualifications: "signed-up"
and "in the 90's." Jeannie Curran and the young suicide were in the
1980's. Several other people dropped their paper work before they died,
AS I SAID.
>Rob Michaels died and decomposed and was not cryopreserved per his
>instructions (which were to proceed regardless of how badly he had
>decomposed).
Not true, actually, and a nasty rumor to spread, Mike. Rob *Michels*
was a neuro-member and his instructions were to preserve any "brain
tissue" found. None was obtainable; all had been destroyed by the Medical
Examiner. But this is the "one" cryonicist I meant who had died without
being frozen in the 1990's.
>Althea Flynt (Larry Flynt's wife) had core paperwork (i.e., enough to get
>her frozen) completed and money was CERTAINLY not a problem. She did not
>have her CSA done, but did have her AGA and Relative's Affidavit from
>Larry. She was not cryopreserrved because she was autopsied with
>subsequent refusal of the ME to release her brain. PERIOD.
A marginal case to fit into this category. I'm not sure of the date
on this, although I thought it was before 1990. And she was only
partially signed up. By current standards at Alcor, the Cryonic
Suspension Agreement is certainly part of the "core paperwork," and I
thought it was then, too.
>Steve Bridge's statement is thus not accurate.
Please rethink that accusation, Mike. It is true that cryonics has had a
lot of trouble; but I think my actual statement WAS carefully qualified
and accurate.
Steve Bridge
Stephen Bridge, President ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013 (800) 367-2228 FAX (602) 922-9027
for general requests
http://www.alcor.org
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7479