X-Message-Number: 9902 Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 07:05:51 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #9897 - #9900 Hi everyone! To Saul Kent: When I said that "affordability" should be part of the problem, I did NOT mean that we should choose poorer but affordable methods over better but more expensive ones. I meant that we should look for means to make the better and more expensive ones at least as good but less expensive. While an expensive method, if used, would show the possibility of doing what we want, and therefore have some effect, it will not cause much increase in the numbers of cryonicists and may, if it were allowed to do so, cause a backlash. Just what to do if we had such a method is a political/economic question which I was not trying to answer. However if the only method which assured revival, say, cost $100 million 1998 dollars, then there will be an obvious problem. Neither of us have that much, and we would be forced, if we needed suspension, to use other methods which were proven to be worse. In cases like that, I think that the rational response is to use the method first on animals, and then work hard to bring down its cost. I'd actually EXPECT that the first efforts would be expensive (though probably not $100 million worth). That's one of their defects. The obvious response is that the first efforts aren't intended for use but done as an experiment. Should we use such methods to suspend those who can come up with the required money? Doing so, of course, would justify all those who claim that cryonics is for only the rich... politically unwise (I think). My own best suggestion for such a case would be to ask twice the required amount from anyone who can afford it, and then use half that sum for research aimed at lowering the cost. Given that cryonics gives a chance at immortality, I personally doubt very much that we'd do very well politically if we let the cost remain high. Best and long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9902