X-Message-Number: 7573
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:14:35 -0700 (MST)
From: Fred Chamberlain <>
Subject: Part B - Scope/Definition of Cryonics
From: Fred Chamberlain, incoming President ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
(Continued from Part A of same subject.)
For the sake of context, my introductory note from part A, along with the
quoted excerpts from Brian Wowk's posting, is included immediately below.)
(From Part A)
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.
(Start of Part B)
RESEARCH NEEDED FOR BOTH IDEAL AND NON-IDEAL CASES.
Along with those who are "willing to wait" for better methods of
vitrification and (finally) perfected suspended animation, there are many
who are unwilling to simply "invest for the future, for those who come
later", who want to "have a shot at it for themselves" before these higher
technologies are realized. Also, they would like to work toward being able
to demonstrate a preservation technology which can handle circumstances
which are non-ideal... based on the application of high technology repairs,
understanding that non-ideal suspensions will always be part of the spectrum
of the attempts to save lives (unless and until certain portions of that
spectrum are demonstrated to have zero potential for patient recovery, by
standards of loss of identity which are universally or very widely accepted).
For those persons, research must go beyond simply perfecting vitrification
or suspended animation. It must look for molecular markers which support
the feasibility of repairs necessary in cases of substantial, even extreme,
compromise. Only at this level will a truly "reliable" system be feasible.
Only if we are able to cope with a wide range of circumstances and levels of
entry technology can we expect to take survival probability into the 95%-99%
probability range, where (I think) most of us want it to be.
Along with research to perfect vitrification and suspended animation, which
I am strongly in favor of, we need also to actively explore the levels of
structure which we can expect to preserve at every level of compromise we
are willing to treat with any degree of hope whatever, and we need to
develop models which permit us to more and more reliably impute the recovery
of whatever levels of memory and identity would be possible, under those
conditions.
By the time "brain recovery with ideal methodologies" is achieved (10-20
years), we ought also to have achieved a very high level of capability to
predict what the outcome will be in compromised cases. The time scales for
these two efforts are compatible, and in view of how suspensions are likely
to take place, both of these efforts (as a "systems approach to cryonics
research") are appropriate and necessary.
PROVISIONS FOR LOSSES OF MEMORY / IDENTITY
There is one reality which, inevitably, we cannot escape. In many cases,
depending on circumstances and entry procedure limitations, there will be
damage leading to varying degrees of loss of memory and identity. We will
not give up on such cases, but work to recover what we can, within any
limitations set by personal preferences. To maximize the recovery potential
in such cases, we need to work out systems (such as Linda and I began to
work on in the late 80's under the name "LifePact"):
(a) Part of the LifePact idea is to find out all we can about who we
are freezing before we freeze them (using such means as video interviewing
and methodical archiving of memory and identity related artifacts), placing
special emphasis on determining preferences for identity and memory recovery
as criteria for reanimation. In the past, this particular subject has been
avoided because of the possibility that persons might set limits on recovery
which would not later make sense. Conversely, such a practice removes
individual preference from the equation, and tends to make such subjects
"invisible" to the individual member. Much more needs to be said on this
subject, for which there is no room in this posting.
(b) In addition to archiving, emphasizing exploration of personal
preferences, LifePact represents the start of planning of "reentry
communities" where those with memory/identity losses and adaptation
difficulties help each other to cope with these problems, working toward a
state where they are fully ready to rejoin society as it exists at that
time, becoming part of our expansion (as Carl Sagan would have put it) "Into
the Cosmos"! The idea of "emerging into the future" needs to be
systematically explored, so as to broaden our range of expectations and
reduce adaptation obstacles after reanimation. It is one of the few things
which can be done by individual members at this time, to maximize readiness
to "step out at the other end". Again, this is a very extensive subject,
with insufficient room in this post for even a comprehensive introduction.
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT - CRYONICS PROMOTION
So, how should we respond to inquiries about cryonics? How should we
present the cryonics program to the general public?
Although this is a matter of individual choice, I expect to tell people what
we have been telling them all along; the bad news is that we have no way of
saying that they will come back without a lot of damage needing to be
repaired, and even worse, even if vitrification is perfected and (then)
suspended animation itself, in some, perhaps many cases, they will *still*
come back with a lot of damage needing to be repaired, or perhaps no way
will ever be found to restore an acceptable level of memory and identity for
them, such that it would be possible for them to think of themselves as "the
same persons" (in any respect) as before they were suspended.
On the positive side, we could tell them (I expect to tell them) that we may
be able to fix damage, perhaps better than we presently dare to hope... and
that we're working to better define that side of the problem. Finally, even
if they suffer losses of memory and identity, that doesn't mean (in my eyes)
that they're to be regarded as "hopeless", unless that is a choice they have
made for themselves. I'll tell them that we're already beginning to
conceive programs to deal with that, so by the time it is feasible to put
such programs into action, they will be fully worked out.
Others may wish to be more pessimistic in their presentation of
possibilities. That's their right. Some may wish to delay suspension
arrangements until suspended animation is perfected and then rule out any
procedures under less than perfect conditions. Or, they may elect to rule
out suspension unless some arbitrary limitation of ischemic time is
achieved, and/or unless some given level of cryoprotection is produced.
That's a matter of personal choice.
OVERALL BOTTOM LINE?
I think it is inappropriate that public focus and interest in cryonics be
limited to procedures which lie above some arbitrary threshold such as
"perfected vitrification". While it is true that this might make the
subject more palatable for those of limited vision, it would also be a
first, tiny step toward the notion that "only in cases of perfected
suspended animation, under ideal circumstances, where reanimation is
presently possible, should any attempt whatever be made"!
If such a notion as this were to become dogma. this would be the "death of
cryonics" as we know it. Just as we cannot afford to let cryonics become a
"cult-ritual" practice, with no scientific accountability, we cannot afford
to limit it to certain thresholds of feasibility projections, based on
speculation as to limits of recoverability, where no fundamental
demonstrations of infeasibility are provided, at a time when the very
subject of identity itself is still in the earliest stages of development.
Fred Chamberlain
(END OF PART B)
ps. I have appended some of the comments Hugh Hixon offered on this
subject, in his review of an early draft of the above posting. They could
have been incorporated with credit into the above discussion, but (instead)
they will be allowed to speak for themselves.
COMMENTS BY HUGH HIXON:
(a) Although cryopreservation by vitrification is an attractive
theory, it is not foregone that is the best method. Some form of
chemopreservation might be better, for example. We have seized on
cryopreservation simply because that of all the preservation
techniques available to us, cryopreservation is the only one which
allows *any* recovery of living cells *at this time*. Likewise for
the concept of reversible suspended animation (i.e., not involving
nanotechnology, for example). We simple think it looks like the best
path with limited resources and a cryonics bias.
From: *Biophysics and Biochemistry at Low Temperatures*, Felix Franks,
QH324.9/C7/F73, 1985, p.180.
"A word of caution is needed on possible connections between
high fidelity electron micrographs and low temperature preservation
of biological materials, as discussed in Chapter 8. It is the aim of
the microscopist to produce 'beautiful' micrographs which exhibit a
maximum of structural detail. Such micrographs are believed to be
the 'true' in vivo state of the specimen before its long journey
began which ended on the metal grid inside the electron microscope."
"The cryobiologist is concerned with devising treatments which
will enhance the probability of survival of living tissue after
prolonged periods of storage at subfreezing temperatures. We have
seen that osmotic dehydration and freeze concentration figure largely
among common treatments, and the appearance of the tissue in its
artificially cold hardened state is marked by cell shrinkage and
distortion. It is in fact the very opposite in appearance from the
beautiful electron micrographs which are so common in the
biological literature (Farrant, 1977). What is certain, despite
claims to the contrary (Moor & Muhlethaler, 1963), is that the
pretreatments commonly used in electron microscopy to maintain a
beautiful true-to-life (?) appearance are the very opposite of
those used by the cryobiologist the promote preservation of function."
Note: Felix Franks is the author of *Water* (5 volumes).
(Continuation of commentary by Hugh Hixon... not Felix Franks)
THE THRESHOLD TO THE FUTURE
Recent advances in the state of the art in genetic biochemistry,
quantum physics, and the computerized abstraction of data obtained in
both these fields have led to major advances in our understanding and
control of living systems. We believe that this progress will lead to
the complete conscious control of life processes by the middle of the
21st Century. A minor but extremely significant product of this
control will be the elimination of human death in all but the most
extraordinary circumstances. We consider it very likely that
individuals alive today will be active in the 30th Century and
beyond, that they will walk under strange stars and skies, and that
their lives and circumstances will be such as to be beyond the
imagination of science fiction.
Believing this as we do, and wishing desperately to participate
in the future of the human race, we have constructed a lifeboat for
use in the event that the death to which we are now condemned to
outraces the advance of medical technology. The principle of our
lifeboat is the preservation of our human remains at extremely low
temperatures, beginning as soon as possible after the pronouncement
of clinical death. At those temperatures, the laws of physics
dictate that deterioration is slowed by ratios of millions to one, so
that in biochemical terms only hours will have elapsed by the time we
arrive in an era able to restore us to life and health, and a new
birth of existence.
As is the case with lifeboats upon the trackless sea, we do not
anticipate an easy voyage through time to a safe shore. The maps we
draw from our best estimates make obvious the possibility of
foundering on technological inadequacy, natural disaster, economics,
war, lack of foresight, and individual and collective human
stupidity. We make no guarantee, either to ourselves or to others,
that we will survive the voyage. This is a true adventure, and our
survival at the end will be a matter of both skill and luck.
Notwithstanding, we do not see this as a remarkable risk. If we
do not take this step, we will simply suffer the fate of every human
being who has ever lived, to have death take us and then even the
living memory of us. Future generations may gape in horror that we
should have been subjected to such an extremity to survive. We see it
only as an extension of our will to take the next breath, and thus do
we make our plans and embark, as our bodies founder upon the rocks of
advancing age. The name of our lifeboat is the ALCOR Life Extension
Foundation, and we invite you to join us.
******* (END OF REMARKS BY HUGH HIXON) *********
My apologies for the length of these (two) postings, but
the subject matter relates to the very heart of what we
mean by the term "cryonics", and thus needed to be treated
in a detailed way.
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=7573