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