X-Message-Number: 9671
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 03:56:27 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #9649 - #9663

Hi guys once more!

To Saul Kent, again:
I asked you to define "failure" of cryonics. My own definition would
mean exactly that our present methods had somehow been shown not to work
in all cases so far. Your last message, which claims to provide a 
definition, does not do so at all. Instead it repeats your call for more
research and describes the overwhelming need for such research.

Do not be surprized that I suggested the conclusions which I suggested.
If cryonics has "failed" in the sense I give above, then why not thaw
out the bodies that we once thought were patients? And keep in mind that
I DO NOT BELIEVE that cryonics has failed.

There is something quite essential going on here. We are dealing with 
a technical advance. Whether or not it succeeds or fails does not, will
not, and cannot depend on the number of those who believe it has succeeded
or failed. That's not how the world works, in case you have forgotten.
Medicine does not succeed or fail based on a popular vote. For that matter,
a research program does not succeed or fail depending on the number of
people who believe it ought to do so.

I too, perhaps even more than you, know that I am growing older and 
want the best suspension possible. And yes, I have put my money where
my mouth is, and did so even years ago. If we develop a means to 
reversibly suspend (even) brains I will be among the first to cheer ...
and also to feel relieved. Yet for CRYONICS suspended animation is
only a step, and many more steps are needed. 

Am I glad that you are putting so much of your own time and money into
research to improve suspensions? Most certainly. Do I believe that such
research will convince much larger numbers of people to join a 
cryonics society? In percentage terms it probably will --- cryonics
societies being now a minuscule percentage of the population. But we 
will not see anywhere near even a large minority of the population at
large joining cryonics societies because we can now do reversible
suspensions. In that sense, I do not believe that successful suspended
animation will change our situation very much.

The entire thrust of your messages, as I read them, seems to IDENTIFY
cryonics and suspended animation. Yes. We most certainly do not have
any form of suspended animation now that works. And so the easy conclusion
is that cryonics itself does not "work"... a conclusion which only follows
if you identify the two. I DO NOT.

At one time, if I recall correctly, you told me a story about the
cryobiologist Sherman. It seems that Sherman was saying that the success
of cryonics would be proven when someone had been suspended, revived,
and made immortal. And we all laughed at that idea. Yet Sherman under-
stood what Bob was saying: and that last clause still remains: "and
made immortal". While by its definition immortality can never be
attained, we can hope at least for total reversal of agng, which 
(note, despite various drugs etc) has not yet been attained. Moreover
the notion that cryonics must be proven to "work" in Sherman's
sense remains laughable --- though every other medical procedure must
essentially meet exactly the same test.

Clearly if we really want reversal of our aging, we will have to 
consider using suspended animation to reach a time in which that
becomes possible --- though just when that time will come, and what
it will imply, remain unknown. We should not apply standard medical
tests of success to cryonics (and I suspect strongly that in real
human cases we will find them hard to apply even if we can produce
experimentally reversible suspended animation in animals). 

You do not have to argue the need for research with me, because I
accepted it many years ago. But if your notion of "success" of
cryonics requires some kind of mass movement, then please clarify 
your reasons. And frankly, I even think it dangerous to identify
the "success" of cryonics with proof of successful suspended
animation (even of a brain). Just as successful suspended animation
would be far from enough to show that CRYONICS "works", its 
failure does not prove that CRYONICS has failed. And if we come
to identify the two, then someday all those who were not suspended
with the techniques we hope to have soon WILL be thawed out. After
all, their cryonic suspensions "failed", did they not?

			Best and long long life to all,
			
				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9671