X-Message-Number: 8155
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: CRYONICS Re: CryoNet #8017 - #8024
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:19:14 -0700 (PDT)

Hi again!

Basically I would agree with Steve about the recent NATURE poll. Everything in
its context was suggesting RELIGIOUS immortality. And if asked in that 
context, I would first of all feel very uncomfortable (like I was being pressed
into a seat which wasn't the right shape for me by people who could not 
imagine any other) but might well say that no, I did not want immortality --
meaning that I did not want to someday receive my harp and halo and spend the
rest of eternity singing hosannas to God: one of the most boring activities
I can imagine, made worse by the "fact" that it would last forever. (Or could
it be that all those Christians have it wrong, and their Heaven is really
Hell and their Hell is really a Heaven?)  Enough!

To Jan Coetzee I'll just say I'm glad he's made it through, and hope he can
stick around for years more.

And now about the distinction between nanotechnology and Nanotechnology.
When I spoke briefly about neurons, I meant what I said. I value something
which EXISTS and which we already know to work much more than many books of
theory about rod logic. I've read Drexler's books, and his ideas are 
certainly interesting, but they suffer from one major fault. No one has yet
implemented them. No one may EVER implement them, and the only test of 
practicality I would use would be such implementations. At the very same time,
we see materials scientists working on supramolecular devices, which come
near to practical implementation, and biotechnologists becoming more and 
more capable at molding life forms to suit their ideas and desires. I try
to report on nanotechnology in PERIASTRON --- as it exists, not the various
theoretical ideas of Drexler and others. If Mr. Clark is unwilling to even
open any book on biotechnology he limits himself much more than he knows.

As for cryonics, cryonics first of all is an AIM, not an accomplishment, and
cannot be judged as if it exists already. Not only that, but it was thinking
in cryonics about how repairs might be done, prior to Drexler's appearance,
that gave one instance of nanotechnology. And even that thinking involved
highly modified versions of reactions and creatures which exist all around
us. Not just viruses, but bacteria, and not just bacteria, but even larger
devices using similar principles --- all modified to do whatever repairs
we may need. Sure, we MAY need devices that can work at LN temperatures,
but that is not so far given sufficient abilities to work with biological
molecules... and it's not even obvious that we need such devices. (Though
that requires a very long discussion). Most of all, biotechnology, including
modified viruses, and means to introduce genes into the genome of cells
and people --- all these EXIST NOW.

It is just because these areas are, in practice, so far ahead of other ideas
which remain theory only that I think we may find, in the end, that our 
revival, even if we have been very badly messed up, will come not from anything
thought up by Drexler and his coworkers but from other methods entirely.
Fundamentally I will be happy to survive by whatever means, but it is simply 
false that we MUST use the notions put forward by Drexler in order to get 
that survival. There are many other ways to reach that aim. 

Even to claim that "we design things much better ... etc" ignores the quite
visible fact that so far no such WORKING design has been produced. Could this
perhaps be because those trying to do so make unjustified assumptions as
to just how such devices must work? When Mr Clark or others actually produce
a really, working device rather than a theoretical one, that will be the time
for us all to decide that we can do it "better". Theory is cheap. Actuality 
take much more effort. Sure, some people BELIEVE they can make objects
which work better to do the same things as cells, but that believe means
very little unless and until they carry through with it --- and not in some
specially isolated setup, but in one exposed to all the events we must
face.

In short, it is quite wrong to be content with Nanotechnology as the solution
to our problems. Lots more than that will be needs, and other solutions may
turn out better.

			Long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8155