X-Message-Number: 7572
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:16:12 -0700 (MST)
From: Fred Chamberlain <>
Subject: Part A - Scope/Definition of Cryonics
From: Fred Chamberlain, incoming President ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
REDUCED/DELAYED/ALTERED PROMOTION OF CRYONICS?
Recently, Brian Wowk suggested that widespread promotion of cryonics to the
public be altered to reflect the anticipation of some new plateau of
preservation, perhaps "perfected vitrification" with recovery of small
organs from animals, or other such demonstration of feasibility:
>Message #7508
>From: Brian Wowk <>
>Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:44:31 -0600
>Subject: PR vs. Research
(excerpts follow)
>In short, I am suggesting that the whole paradigm of cryonics
>promotion be shifted from an emphasis on future technology
>to an emphasis on communicating the potential of making cryonics
>work TODAY. No more telling people to sign up (especially elderly
>and dying people) because nanotechnology might make cryonics
>work for them. No more telling people about the flawed
>worldview of cryobiologists and other biologists critical
>of cryonics. No more complaining that the rest of the world
>doesn't understand the future.
>None of this is in any way intended to diminish the
>invaluable contributions of people like Eric Drexler and
>Ralph Merkle in making cryonics more credible (or of Bob
>Ettinger for the powerful idea that unperfected cryonics is
>worth doing). However I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable
>with the intimate association between cryonics and esoteric
>future technology. The image of cryonics as speculation on
>way-out far-future technogy, instead of near-term goal-directed
>science, has cost us enormously in terms of respectability
>and appeal to biomedical scientists.
>By conventional standards of medical research funding,
>we are an infinitesimal distance away from having cryonics
>technologies that DEMONSTRABLY WORK. We need a greater
>emphasis on the specifics of why this is so, and to deliver
>these specifics with a flourish that will inspire the people
>and resources needed to get the job done.
This is midway between the point of view that only perfected suspended
animation is worthy of promotion, and the generally accepted cryonics
movement position up to this time, that unless proof is offered as to the
fundamental infeasibility of reanimation (violating some law of nature), for
a particular preservation modality, cryonics preservation is a valid procedure.
DO WE ALREADY KNOW WHICH CASES ARE "HOPELESS"?
It is not sufficient, as demonstration of a violation of a law of nature, to
say that we cannot presently obtain data which support repair. It may turn
out that there are more than enough molecular markers, even in highly
compromised cases, to infer structures which (when repaired or replaced)
will restore memory and sense of identity. We thus cannot presently
satisfy the requirement of ruling out repairability, on the basis of any
truly fundamental knowledge.
(For the purpose of this discussion, a "molecular marker", or more
simply, a "marker", is a molecular residue which identifies
(unambiguously) the former existence of a functional biological
structure such as a point on a cell membrane, organelle, intracellular
boundary, etc., not geometrically displaced from its original location
by such a distance as to make its existence irrelevant.)
Conversely, we should make it clear that we cannot, in any definite way, say
that we have confidence we can restore structures where molecular markers
are *not* presently observable. Although such markers may actually exist,
we cannot point to nanotechnology as a means of repair, without (at the same
time) acknowledging that we must be able to find markers with which to
orchestrate such repairs. In cases where we cannot point to structural
evidence of a significant kind, we can only say that we are preserving
biological residue on the expectation that better observational technology
may reveal the necessary markers.
PRACTICAL ASPECTS:
There are already patients in storage who are dependent on the evolution of
high (nano) technology to make their return to society (with perhaps
something less than perfect preservation of memory and/or identity
characteristics) possible. In many of these cases, we do not have a firm
basis for projecting repair, even by nanotechnology, since we have not
carried out an assessment of their qualities of preservation even by
electron microscopy, much less by use of molecular probes in representative
tissue samples. Still, we maintain these patients in suspension, with the
expectation that we may ultimately find sufficiently significant structural
residue (markers) to facilitate repair.
There are also many cryonicists who *will* 'die', over the years immediately
ahead, who will receive less than perfected vitrification or anything like
it, due to the current state of technology, without regard to the
circumstances or legal obstacles which might add to the damage. In such
cases, we will not pause to assess the likelihood of conserving molecular
markers during transport or even cryoprotection, and it is unlikely that we
will soon draw lines of decision making as to whether or not such patients
should be maintained in suspension, except to the extent that individual
preferences have been set forth by those members (such as, "Don't suspend me
in the event of more than 24 hours warm ischemia.")
Finally, even with the availability of perfected vitrification or even
perfected suspended animation, there will be persons suspended (into the
indefinite future) who will be severely compromised, due to circumstances or
the intervention of legal authority. Perhaps at such times there will be
criteria which create so much confidence that certain classes of cases are
"hopeless" that (in those cases) no cryonic suspension will even be
attempted, or the patients will be suspended, evaluated, and then
desuspended. We do not presently have such criteria, other than might be
established on an individual preference basis, (again, such as "Don't
suspend me in the event of more than 24 hours warm ischemia.")
WILL WE EVER KNOW WHICH CASES ARE "HOPELESS"?
Will we ever have so much confidence that we will fail to suspend certain
classes of cases, other than as determined by personal preferences? That is
a matter for speculation. My inclination is to anticipate that (barring
personal preference prohibitions) we will always preserve whatever we can,
but that the "whatever" will evolve to fit certain reanimation scenarios (in
the very worst cases) such as cloning and information based "memory/identity
synthesis", which are (at present) just as speculative and unconventional as
the postulation of molecular markers where we cannot presently observe them.
Even after suspended animation is perfected, I would expect "less than
perfect" preservation scenarios to be driven by personal preferences, rather
than being mandated by controversial philosophies debating "who we can save
and who we cannot". The standards established by personal preferences might
be in terms of recovery criteria:
Some suspendees might rule out reanimation unless biological
repair of all neuronal structures, down to the last fine
structures of dendritic trees, are so close to the originals
as to be within the limits of modification by normal
metabolic processes over some small period of time (such as
24 hours).
Others might say that they would accept repairs which require
inference of functional interconnectivity of neurons, so
long as the evidence (from both animal work and clinical human
practice) is that no significant subjective or objective losses
of memory or identity can be detected).
Still others might say that they would gladly accept repairs or
reconstructions of any kind developed and in use for restoration
of memory and identity in conventional medical practice at the
time of their reanimations, regardless of degree of inference of
structure needed for such repairs or reconstructions.
In any case, I think personal preferences are the key, in decisions of what
is "hopeless" and what is not. That is why Linda Chamberlain and I have
placed such strong emphasis on the LifePact idea (see Part B, a separate
posting, under "PROVISIONS FOR LOSSES OF MEMORY / IDENTITY").
To summarize on the subject of "hopelessness", short of bureaucratic
regulation of "who will be frozen and who will not", I don't think we will
ever reach a point where we will be telling others under what conditions and
by what technologies they should be suspended and or should not be
suspended. For that reason, I (also) do not think that we will soon reach
agreements upon standards for postulating cryonics as a valid procedure, so
long as full disclosures of uncertainties and limitations of knowledge are made.
PUBLIC RELATIONS JUSTIFICATIONS
>From a public relations standpoint, it would be better if we could tell the
world that we had "perfected vitrification" or "perfected suspended
animation". But would we expect that only those cases which could be given
such a level of treatment would be taken? Would we expect that those who
are already in suspension would be abandoned, on the basis of such a
standard? Surely not! There still remain controversies as to whether or
not neuropreservation is "good PR", from the standpoint of public
perception. But we do not exclude it as an acceptable procedure on the
basis of that controversy. Neither can we easily agree upon boundaries
beyond which cryonic suspension is not to be publicly promoted, so long as
appropriate disclosures of uncertainty are made.
QUEST FOR A FULLY EFFECTIVE "SAFETY NET"
Any criteria which restricts "hopeful" cases to a narrow range of
circumstances or entry procedures eliminates anything like a reliable system
of saving lives. If we (hypothetically) restricted suspensions to cases
where we could be sure we had "perfected vitrification" or (even) "perfected
suspended animation", cryonics or whatever it later would come to be called
would represent a time-transport system where "planes crash routinely".
If legal delays in access or other non-ideal circumstances (unwitnessed
cardiac arrests, for example) were permitted to abort suspensions, then
those electing cryonic suspension would have to accept a substantial
probability that things "would not work out" in their cases. Realistically,
we know we will not impose such criteria, but altering public promotion of
cryonics to reflect a need to wait for higher technologies is (in effect)
advocacy that the use of lower technologies is hopeless. If that is not the
case, then the only driving considerations (again) reduce to public
perceptions, i.e. "PR", or perhaps increased emphasis on supporting research
by reducing emphasis on the possibility of recovering persons suspended by
lesser technologies.
(Due to file length limitations, this discussion is continued
in a separate posting, Part B, same subject. The first
heading, for sake of continuity, is shown immediately below.)
RESEARCH NEEDED FOR BOTH IDEAL AND NON-IDEAL CASES.
(continued in Part B)
Fred Chamberlain, incoming 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
************************************************************
* For most human beings, *
* Physical obliteration comes in three basic "flavors", *
* Earth, Water and Fire *
* (Burial on land, at sea, and cremation). *
* Critics of cryonics would add a fourth flavor, "Ice"! *
* *
* But the final answer will not soon be known, *
* And by the time it is fully determined, *
* The critics will no longer be "in the audience"! *
* *
* Contact ALCOR - "" *
* or dial 602-922-9013, fax 602-922-9027 *
************************************************************
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7572