From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 12:19:39 MDT
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Charles Hixson wrote:
> Well, except that the information that I've seen appears to indicate
> that current cyronics does a lot of damage even during the original
> freezing process. It's a big gamble. Such a big one, that you're
The bottleneck lies typically elsewhere. I.e. you have to be incredibly
lucky so that the vitrification (freezing should only be done if you
can't load the tissue with cryoprotectants; and latest approaches allow
quantitative vitrification) artifacts are the dominating damage.
> probably better putting things off as long as possible in the hope that
> the technology improves. What you should do is make sure that you
Even dramatical improvents in vitrification (which won't be all that
dramatic, as physics sets you limits) are completely useless if not
deployed as integral part of the intensive care medicine.
> maintain optimum levels of cholesterol (needed for neuron maintenance,
> deadly as it accumulates in the arteries), anti-oxidants (needed for
> protection from the immune system, but you don't want attackers to also
> be protected), etc.
Johnny can't CR. Despite it being the only working life extension there is.
Supplementing has not demonstrated a significant life extension.
(However, supplementing done wisely doesn't hurt, and you will especially
profit from supplementing when doing calorie restriction, or living a
risky lifestyle).
> If cryonics is your only choice, then take it as the best choice
> available. But don't think of it as a good risk.
Right now your chances of being suspended optimally are very slim.
However, I'm rather optimistic that in 30, 40 years cryonics will be a
mainstream option. By that time I expect at least partial validation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:41 MST