X-Message-Number: 9613
From: "Brian Wowk" <>
Subject: Technology Milestones
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 00:14:57 -0700

Bob Ettinger wrote:

>Well, to begin with, we have an inconsistency between some of Saul's
>statements. One of his main contentions is that cryonics has a terrible or
>non-existent product, which accounts for the allegedly moribund state of
the
>program. This rotten product includes the advances (whatever their degree
of
>merit) in previous years by Alcor and BioPreservation (BP). So mere
advances
>that fall short of suspended animation, according to Saul's essay, will
NOT
>have any significant impact on growth of cryonics. Yet now he says,
"improved
>cryonics methodswill lead to major growth in cryonics. [if accompanied by
>research published in professional journals and a well funded suspended
>animation program]" 

	Saul Kent has asked me to briefly elaborate on 21CM's
vision of progess in suspended animation, and on why this apparent
contradiction is not a contradiction at all.

	We foresee three major milestones:

1) Brain Vitrification (successful preservation of brain ultrastructure
without any ice formation).  Order-of-magnitude timeline: months.

2) Perfected Brain Preservation (real-time reversible preservation of
the brain in a viable state-- suspended animation of the brain).
Order-of-magnitude timeline: years.

3) Human Suspended Animation (real-time reversible preservation
of whole humans).  Order-of-magnitude timeline: decades.


All progress in cryonics research to date has been incremental
improvement in previous methods.  The above breakthroughs
will, in contrast, be *qualitatively distinct* departures from
previous technology.  They will, if you will excuse the cliche,
cause fundamental paradigm shifts in the practice and
perception of cryonics.  (I refuse to participate in any
aguments about this.  I'm merely asserting what I believe
to be obvious.  History can be my judge.)

	Finally, Bob has suggested that there may be
a conflict-of-interest in pursuing suspended animation
vs. maximizing shareholder value.  As Bob well knows,
it is becoming increasingly common for hi-tech companies
to re-invest all profits back into the company without paying
any dividends as a matter of policy.  And shareholders are
completely happy with this, deriving all profits from share
price appreciation.

	I don't know what 21CM's dividend policy will be,
but if we assume that all profits are re-invested in research
then clearly there is no conflict between achieving suspended
animation and maximizing shareholder wealth.  That's because
it is in the company's best interests to maximize profits on
spin-off products so that more money becomes available for
more research, leading to the perfection of the desired product
(suspended animation) which will be one of the most
profitable medical products of the 21st Century.

Brian Wowk, Ph.D.
Physicist
21st Century Medicine, Inc.     

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9613