X-Message-Number: 9768
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 04:37:11 -0400
From: Brenda Peters <>
Subject: Cryonet:Brenda

From: Brenda Peters, 

Dear John and other CryoNet readers,

I've read Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World, Science As A Candle In The
Dark. Refreshing, inspiring, and worthy of every moment it took to read in
an already much too short lifespan.

The tradedy of Carl Sagan, (unless God exists, as Dr. Sagan hoped he
somehow did), is that Saganhb  didn't take advantage of the chance he might
have had with cryonics. And he is a loss to all of us though his great,
lucid mind, and his wisdom lives on in his works.

It seems to me that, in part, cryonics relies upon future engineering and
molecular technology, both of which we can to some degree of accuracy
predict and of which we can have reasonable expectations due to current
knowledge and engineering's ability to extrapolate from that. This ability
to predict the future is not new to engineering. Even Leonardo de Vinci
predicted heavier than air flight hundreds of years before the tools were
available to make it happen. His astute predictions were aided by what he
could observe from birds. He was one of our earliest "geers". Therefore,
happily, future technologies are to some extent predictable. 

But it is perhaps important to remember that asking to have your corpse
"flown" to a modern (1998) medical facility if you died of pnuemonia in
1649 would not have done you much good  **even if you had been frozen at
the time** for flight was not available and freezing would have been of the
most rudimentary sort -- a "straight freeze" as we in the the cryonics
community cringe to even verbalize. 

Nanotechology (or molecular technology) is nothing new. It has been
occurring in nature since the first single celled organisms existed, since
molecules existed. We simply lack the tools at this time to create certain
desirable functioning nano sized devices but they are very much in the
realm of predictability and will be, at least according to a fairly
prestigious consensus of my friends, possible and available in the next few
decades.
 
John, I believe your concerns are certainly valid but upon reflection,
nothing to be concerned about. &:)

What I believe to be the real concerns today are those of current
technology. And you yourself point out: "But the Westminster Project would
almost certainly fail. Why? Because the underlying science hadn't been
done." 

Many people involved with cryonics (many being an overstatement since so
very very few signed up members are more than simply customers and not
activists and think little if anything of what is actually being done,
beyond the fact they they have a cryonics "club" (group of mostly volunteer
individuals) that will respond in some (mostly pathetic way) if they
expire). At least some of us who have been hard core activists for decades
are fully aware of your point that "the underlying science hasn't been
done". Some of us are only too aware that the only rational course to
pursue is to make sure the "underlying science" is done: ie: to put our
emphasis on insuring that we are truly preserving memory with minimum
freezing damage.

By the time I'm cryopreserved I hope that CryoCare will be able to provide
me with a high comfort level due to data confirming that the process will
work, not because of dependence upon future technology (some of which will
inevitably be required, no matter what the efficacy of my crypreservation)
but rather because of the current technology under which I will be
cryopreserved -- presumably (as 21st Century Medicine is heading now) in a
state-of-the-art condition with scientifically verifiable methodology.

I have loved ones already in cryopreservation who's survival will be
problematic at best and require near miracles. My life has for many years
been devoted to insuring that I don't require a virtual miracle but rather
a noninsurmountable amount of nanotech and other disciplines for recovery.
It is clear to me and most everyone I am in contact with on the subject
that we must perfect our cryopreservation technology. By that I mean that
we must be able to verify that we are in fact preserving a person's
identity. We can't sit back on our laurels and expect this to just happen.
We must invest or donate toward the research which will make this a
certainty.

If recent research has shown that we are not achieving this then pessimism
is in order. But at least I *KNOW* that hurculean efforts are being made to
improve the technology using innovative new compounds and techniques. I
feel fortunate to be part of an elite group of individuals signed up with
Cryocare who will receive all the benefits of this resarch and therefore
have the best chance at survival of any other group of people or species on
the planet. I'm sorry that though there are several hundred people who call
themselves cryonicists, it is probably only a few of us (who chose
CryoCare) who will get anything approximating a medically ethical,
scientificaly viable cryopreservation. All others will be reduced to
relying on the "great god nanotech" and if you've ever relied on a god
before, well, you know what that's like.

God speed to all of you, which ever lottery ticket you've purchased, and if
you can still sign up with CryoCare, without some huge surcharge, my best
advice is to do it today, for tomorrow it may be impossible or it may cost
a forture (for which it will be worth).

Though I was the Founding President of CryoCare and am partial to it, I did
spend eight years on the board of directors of Alcor and did participate in
many human "suspensions" as they were called in the early days of cryonics
and I guess are still called by Alcor (though the medically appropriate
term is cryopreservation). I also participated in all of the large animal
research by CryoVita in the 1980's headed by Jerry Leaf. (Jerry gave Alcor
an address and a place from which to conduct business in those days).

Bottom Line: if you're interested in saving your life, sign up with
CryoCare, if that's still possible, and support research at 21st Century
Medicine. If you can't afford it, a cryonics preservation with any of the
other organizations is still worth a shot. CryoCare's Service Providers may
even be aiding in these efforts. Goodness knows, with or without them, it's
better than nothing at all. Cryonics without them, has been the subject of
a big debate latey. I can only venture a personal opinion since I am no
longer an officer in a cryonics company. Mine is that I'm very glad that
I'm where I am. I just couldn't settle for less.

All my best and long life,
Brenda Peters

Brenda Peters

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9768