X-Message-Number: 9757 Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:57:49 -0400 From: Saul Kent <> Subject: Assumptions Tom Mazanee (9754) assumes that "the one thing that would enable cryonics to 'take off' would be the successful reani- mation of a long-term frozen 'suspendee'." I disagree. I think cryonics can "take off" (in relative terms), with marketing help, after the demonstration (in published papers) of the successful cryopreservation of the brain. In fact, I believe that the successful cryo- preservation of any major organ (such as the kidney) would provide the cryonics move- ment with a significant boost in growth. Mazanee goes on to state that: "Of course, by that time, almost any conceivable cause of death short of brain disintegration will be curable, so no-one (except perhaps astro- nauts?) will *need* cryonics!" I disagree again. The major cause of death today is aging (or "dying" as it should properly be called). As someone who is funding anti-aging research as well as cryopreservation research, I believe the prospect of major research successes in the short-term is more promising in cryopreservation. I also believe that the time when cryonics is not *needed* is very far away. Even when aging and all diseases can be "cured", people will die in unfavorable circumstances, which will require that they be preserved. By then, however, I expect that fully reversible preservation, or suspended animation, will be available. John de Rivaz (9750) says he is worried that someone will decide in terms of present state of knowledge that the whole project of cryonics is impossible and abandon it. Notice how Darwin and Kent appear to get more pessimistic the more research they do (or fund)." It's interesting to have people call me "pessimistic" about cryonics (or anything else). That's a new experience for me. I want to make it clear that the "pessimism" that I, Mike Darwin, and other 21st Century Medicine (21CM) staff members have about cryonics is, indeed, based upon our (and others) research about present-day methods of cryopreservation, but that the thrust of our current research is to *improve* cryopreservation methods, and that we are already on the way to doing so. Once we have fully achieved and presented advances in cryopreservation to the scientific community, and are on the way to greater advances, we will become more optimistic about cryonics, as, I believe, will others. The central message I want to give to the cryonics community is that we are just *beginning* our cryopreservation research program, that we are confident we can make significant advances in the near future, and that a higher level of funding for our research is likely to lead to a faster timetable for success. Whether our optimism about 21CM research is justified, or not, will become apparent in the next two or three years. I suggest, however, that people should take a close look at what we're doing, our facilities, and our staff, before they make assumptions about the likely future of crypreservation research and its impact on cryonics. ---Saul Kent, CEO 21st Century Medicine Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9757