X-Message-Number: 9619 Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 21:33:53 -0700 From: Tim Freeman <> Subject: Calorie restriction vs. Cryonics John de Rivaz quotes: > From: "Henry R. Hirsch" <> > Subject: Future of Cryonics > (del) if rats could be > revived from one month's storage in liquid nitrogen, the line to sign up > for cryonic suspension would stretch from Ranch Cucamonga to Clinton > Township by way of Scottsdale. First, let me say that I agree the with the practical thrust of Saul Kent's article, which is that we need more research. I've sent INC a check and will send more when Paul Wakfer tells me they need it. However, calorie restriction provides a counterexample to the "do the research and they will come" theory. Here's a comparison of cryonics and calorie restriction as life extension techniques: Similarities: 1. Neither is popular. 2. Both hold out the hope of causing a significant life extension. 3. Both involve doing something your peers and relatives might not like. 4. I have heard people make up bizarre excuses about why both of them won't work on humans. 5. Both are unnatural. 6. Neither corresponds to an easily packageable product you can sell in a store or by mail. Differences: 1. Calorie restriction is difficult, since dieting is difficult. Cryonics is easier, in principle. All you have to do is sign some papers initially and send checks regularly, and notify the organization when you seem to be going down. 2. Calorie restriction unquestionably works on rodents and a number of other species. Lifespan experiments on primates are in the works. Other experiments on humans and other primates have reported similar biochemical changes to what happens to the rodents. In contrast, the revival half of the cryonics experiment can't be done yet on any mammal. Maybe people don't think their own life is worth spending significant money or effort on? -- Tim Freeman http://www.infoscreen.com/resume.html Web-centered Java, Perl, and C++ programming in Silicon Valley or offsite Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9619