X-Message-Number: 8845
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:53:05 -0500
From: Robin Helweg-Larsen <>
Subject: replies

To Paul Wakfer:

> > all suspension will inevitably
> > involve major damage for the foreseeable future, the far enough
future
will be able to put us back together no
> > matter what.
>
> I wish to take issue with this last part of your statement. Your "put
back together no matter what" may be as nothing
> but a amnesiac replica of what you currently are.

the likelihood of that decreases, the longer one waits for reanimation.

> It is most important that all cryonicists should realize that both
because current neuroscience does not sufficiently
> understand the basis of mind so that we are certain we are saving it,
and
because nothing with a mind has ever been
> successfully cryopreserved and restored to life, we CANNOT BE CERTAIN
that we come back with our mind intact.

nothing is certain; but we still invest in families, businesses and
hobbies
with the expectation that things will work
out.  they don't always.  so what?

> And
> this has *nothing* to do with simply waiting longer for better repair
technology. Yes, I agree with the information
> paradigm. But THE INFORMATION MAY BE GETTING DESTROYED DURING THE
CRYOPRESERVATION PROCESS. We do *not* know that it
> isn't!!

a person trying to save a painting from looters hides it in a well, and
it
is irretrievably destroyed.  the frame is
rotted, the canvas has holes through it, no visible trace of the paint
is
left.  destroyed in the preservation process.

> I applogize for yelling, but this point cannot be made strongly
enough.

you made the point.

> This is the *essential* reason why suspended animation must be
perfected
and become an electable procedure before
> legal death available at major hospitals and paid for by health
insurance.

You may well be correct.

> Only in this manner will it be available
> for the vast majority of ways in which we may become terminal and need

it. This procedure will no longer be
> asssociated with cryonics which will still be available after legal
death
for those people who are so badly damaged
> that reversible suspended animation procedures are not possible.

You may well be correct.

> I strongly suggest that anyone who does not understand how essential

... but i didn't agree to the word "essential"; "desirable", yes.

> it is to perfect suspended animation, is living
> in a dream world of wishful thinking. Personally, I will not be
satisfied
that I have any reasonable chance of being
> alive in the far future unless and until suspended animation is
perfected.

In the far future, the remains of the painting are found by satellite in

the bottom of the long-abandoned well.   Xrays
and their future cousins find unseen patterns and colors.  Analysis of
the
surrounding mud provides, atom by atom, an
understanding of the total atoms involved in the frame, canvas and
painting.  Chaos theory is used to model the events
and disturbances which took the molecules to their resting places, and
provides theoretical models of what the object
might have been before the physical and chemical changes occurred.  The
remains have not yet been touched.

Eventually the object is reconstructed theoretically.  Then it is
reconstructed in practice.  Pieces of thread are
fleshed out and rejoined. The artwork is identical to the original;
depending on the esthetics of the time, the materials
may be identical, enhanced, or artistically deteriorated....

The person putting the painting in the well would have had no way of
even
guessing at technologies like satellites,
xrays, chaos theory computer programs.  But guess what?  The rate of
technological change is increasing.  I'm sorry, but
you can't guess what will be available in 200 years; and they won't be
able
to guess what'll come along in another 200
years; and *they* won't be able... etc.  So far we're talking a couple
of
hundred years into the future.  Care to imagine
10,000?  100,000?  It is literally inconceivable.

That is why I think it is more important to be in the care of an
organization that will prevent the well from being
destroyed for as long as possible, than to be in the care of an
organization that waxes your painting before throwing it
in the well.

To Saul Kent:

>         I keep on repeating that, in my opinion, the best chances
> of growth in cryonics is research leading to improved methods because
> others propose devoting resources to growth that I think would be more

> fruitfully devoted to research.

... Unless, perhaps, the growth could be targeted to people who would
generate far more income for research than the time
and money contributed by the growth-promoters.  (The old
Bill-Gates-as-savior mentality; the counter-argument being that
Bill Gates will only be impressed by a demonstrated technology;
therefore,
if you want growth in membership, just do the
damn cryonics research.)

In short, I agree with you.


To Bob Ettinger:

>  1. Organizational viability:
>
> Robin Helweg-Larsen notes various concerns about Cryonics Institute,
Alcor,
> and CryoCare. A few comments about CI's outlook:
>
> SIZE: CI (like all the organizations) is indeed still small,
especially
in
> active members and leaders. But we do have several relatively young
people
> among our actives, some of them with very high levels of competence
and
> commitment. The relatively young people include my son David and his
wife
> Connie, Vice President/Treasurer Pat Heller, Steve Luyckx, Royse
Brown,
Paul
> Michaels, Joe Kowalsky, and York Porter. We also have other relatively

young
> and competent members (mostly out of state) who only need to be given
some
> direction and direct requests in order to pitch in more, and we will
be
> working on that.
>
> CI is on a very firm financial footing, with over $1.7 million in
assets,
no
> debt (not even a mortgage), and low minimum overhead. Future revenues
are
of
> course somewhat murky, but will include substantial bequests (from Mae

and
> me, among others).
>
> The original goal of the founders of CI was not necessarily to become
the
> biggest organization, but a very modest one--to improve the long term
chances
> of ourselves and our families through a very stable organization. If I

could
> get some people, in addition to my own family, to share the expense
and
work,
> fine. If not, we would do it ourselves. We more than succeeded in our
minimal
> objective, and have never raised our prices--but our primary
commitment
is
> still to KEEP our present and future patients safe. Of course, our
ambitions
> are now less modest.

A brilliantly realized plan; my concern is that the organization may
fail
to thrive over, not the next 3 generations or
100 years, but maybe another 3 generations or 100 years after that.  If
reanimation were to become practicable within 100
years, I believe we would all be safe, and we could meet for a Reunion
Party in 2100.  If reanimation is still only a
difficult theory at that point, though, we need to develop *now*
phenomenal
organizational strength and flexibility, and
skills to adapt appropriately to changing times and technologies, to
keep
us safely suspended despite whatever happens in
the time of our descendants.  Personally, although I don't discount the
threat of terrorist nuclear attacks or the
possibility of space-technology warfare, my bigger concern is about the
financial collapse of cryonics organizations (or
legislative interference in suspension procedures and in the maintenance
of
pre-existing suspendees, or picketing by a
religious group that prevents liquid nitrogen shipments, etc etc;).
Prosaic stuff.


To Marty Nemko and Tim Freeman:

>  you'll be in pain and/or they'll
> >make you a slave or put you in a zoo.  All when you could simply have

> >donated the money to a good charity that would guarantee that people
who
> >are starving could get something to eat."  Anyone care to try to
counter
> >that objection?
>
> Response #1: Rhetorical.

> Response #2: Direct.

> Response #3: Raising a larger issue.

Response #3A: Another larger issue:  when indefinite life spans are a
reality, many people will shift from their
nihilistic "life's a bitch, then you die" attitude to working to clean
things up.  Difference between staying 1 night in
an unsatisfactory motel (who cares? I won't be back), and owning a house

that could do with cleaning and repairs (you
mean the window stays broken every day and every night?  forever?  until
I
fix it?)

> Response #4: Telling them to fuck off, politely.

There's also a response #4A: impolite!  (It reminds me of the bumper
sticker seen around here recently: "I can't go to
work today; the voices are telling me to clean my guns...")

To Thomas Donaldson:

> I liked Robin Hellweg-Larsen's personal discussion of his problems in
joining
> up, and more so his discussion of how others might feel. I'm not sure
exactly
> where it should go on my list, but I'll work that out.

I know; I rambled, and shifted direction without roadsigns.  Two points
were:1)  fear that the future will be so
different that, no matter how nice people are, you just won't be
comfortable;
2)  lack of feeling of emotional/social warmth as expressed by a) maybe
the
first cryonicist you come across, or, more
likely, b) transhuman scientific detachment about cadavers, as imaged by
c)
imagery of ice (CryoNet home page - *not*
CryoCare, as I misstated last time), ice-cold stars and shapes (CryoCare

home page), graphs of crack-phone events
(Cryonics magazine), photographs of steel dewars and people in white
coats
(all over the place).

I think the steel dewars and white coats are useful, necessary, good;
however they need to be counterbalanced by warmth
and comfort in the focus of *why* we are cryonicists: for the sake of
reunion and sunny youthful immortality with many
loved friends and family, and all the joy of exploring an ever richer
and
more diverse universe.

Always optimistically,

Robin HL

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8845