X-Message-Number: 9121
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #9105 - #9114
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:46:22 -0800 (PST)

Hi everyone (again!):

I think it's clear from what I've said that I believe that suspending people
NOW who need it ie. would otherwise rot, is proper and very appropriate. And
I have a record of urging more research in cryonics that goes back farther
than most --- ever since I signed up, in 1975. 

And I most definitely feel glad that Paul Wakfer has managed to get together
even the money he has. If 21st Century Medicine and Saul Kent don't want to
use it or can't work out some way to combine with FLLS to work togther, that
would be one more obstacle imposed by cryonicists on themselves. I hope that
this issue works out, one way or another. (But perhaps I'm premature in raising
this possibility -- I hope so).

Furthermore, I am glad that both John Pietrzak and Paul Wakfer have made their
position about cryonics suspensions done NOW more clear. At least Paul Wakfer
has -- I haven't heard from John. One of the essential features of cryonics
is that it just can't be done at the last minute. Those who decide to wait
around until we make it "good enough" fail to see this -- and that may have
serious consequences for them. Nor would complete reversible suspended 
animation deal with this problem; we have to set it up NOW for ourselves. And
since when we do so we aren't about to die, we're also hoping that future
research will help out when we need it.  

As for cryonics itself, I think Fred Chamberlain (very unfortunately!!) is
probably right when he says that full suspended animation will not make most 
people interested in cryonics. (I've felt the same way: the merits of research
here is that it will give US much more security, and tell US that we can
be revived much earlier than many of us had thought. That seems to me a 
very strong argument; the history of doing things to convince OTHERS of
the merits of cryonics, however: research or anything else --- remains far
too full of complete failures).

Ah yes --- but then we come to probability! Clearly Bob and I could go on
for some time. I almost wrote some answers to him in this message. But 
Charles Platt is quite correct --- this is neither the place nor the time
for that. (But I'm happy to continue this discussion with Bob offline).

			Best and long long life to all

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9121