X-Message-Number: 9143 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:17:48 -0500 From: "John P. Pietrzak" <> Subject: Playing Catch-up After having lost a weeks-worth of e-mail due to my boss' fiddling with our company's mail server (grrrrr) I find that I've missed out on some very good discussion here on Cryonet. I'll try not to bore you by digging up too much in response. (Basically, Paul Wakfer in #9114 has outlined my position quite well. Thanks! :) ) (BTW, I just received R. Ettinger's "Cryonics: The Probability of Rescue" in the mail tonight, hope to work my way through it soon.) Quick responses: #9097 (John de Rivaz) (Last Tuesday -- man am I behind :( ) > The choices facing someone dying now or in the near future are > > 1. Burning or rotting > 2. Cryopreservation by present techniques. > > There are no other choices. I agree (as others may have pointed out). > Your comments suggests that someone dying now has the choice of > cryopreservation by future techniques, which is clearly impossible, > unfortunately. It *is* unfortunate; regardless of the logic behind current cryopreservation, some damage is certainly caused by the technique. Yes, it is less damage than burning or rotting, but it isn't negligible by today's standards; regardless of how well cryonics is performed now, I'd like it to be better. #9104 (Thomas Donaldson) (Tuesday) > Yes, a life raft would be far better than a life preserver. [...] > it's quite appropriate to do what we can, NOW, to try and make our > situation different. But that still does not face the question that > cryonics puts before us: just what will you do if all those efforts > fail, and one day you find yourself in the water with a life preserver > nearby. Me, I'll grab on to it. But right now, I must admit that my thoughts are turned more to how I can help build that life raft; I still believe I've got a lot of time left to me. (I guess my problem is that I'm having a lot more trouble locating groups building "life rafts" than those perfecting "life preservers"; both tasks are important. (In fact, now that I've gotten down to Saul Kent's message #9110, let me add my vote of approval to his overview of the problem at hand.)) More on the probability question: Fred Chamberlain (#9111) and Robert Ettinger (#9117, #9127, and others) bring up a similar point in two different ways: through math and logic, one can _prove_ that one's chances with cryonics are better than the alternative. However, both then go on to say, in essence, it is better therefore to not be pessimistic, so as not to spoil the gains already made. In particular, (#9117, Robert Ettinger) > [...] it remains an extremely simple and obvious fact of psychology > and public relations that broadcasting pessimism doesn't help > recruitment. When the pessimism is unjustified, the blunder is even > worse. We don't want to be unscrupulous spin doctors like the > politicians, but optimism works better than pessimism--even in > encouraging research donations. All right, I'm not schooled in psychology or public relations, but I am confident of myself enough to state that my own pessimism has some amount of justification. I readily admit that cryonics is better than the alternative, but forecasts of how much better are speculative at best (although I haven't read to "The Probability of Rescue" yet). No matter what the math, the facts on the ground are that it doesn't work today, it ain't gonna work for some time (as currently applied), and it depends on a great deal of future advancement. We should change this state of affairs, if at all possible. Not good spin, but they are the facts as I see them. (#9121, Thomas Donaldson -- Friday) > 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. Sorry about that. :( > One of the essential features of cryonics is that it just can't be > done at the last minute. Yes, I know. I guess my problem here is, everyone is saying "This is cryonics today. Do it this way or die." I don't want to die, but I don't really want to do cryonics this way either. I'd prefer to change the way cryonics is done... I do intend to eventually (yeah, I know, bad word) sign up with one of the current providers. (But I guess I'm still young enough to believe I have lots of time left. 1/2 :) ) > 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. Well, that's the thing, isn't it? You've got your priorities in order: present sign-up, future research. I've got them in reverse: present research, future sign-up. (I suppose I wouldn't mind both, if I could get away with it.) 'Nuff said, I'd better get back to fixing my e-mail account. John Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9143