From: john grigg (starman125@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Oct 01 1999 - 10:48:40 MDT
Hello everyone,
These are some of the cryonet postings that are the aftermath of Mike
Darwin's comments. I liked Diana Singh's idea of having cryonic research
companies listed on the stock exchanges.
And like Robert Moore I am confused as to which organization at this point
offers the best services and technology. If I understood Mike Darwin
correctly he feels that Alcor now offers the most advanced suspension
methods. I remember when it seemed Cryocare and Biopreservation were the
pace setters.
I believe it will be several years until the dust settles from the 21st
Century Medicine advances. Hopefully within two or three years all the
major suspension providers will be offering what has been now developed. At
least by that time we should be able to tell where the chips have fallen and
who is taking advantage of the new methods and who is not. I feel I can get
straight answers from Mike Darwin and Charles Platt and would recommend them
to anyone here who is looking for guidance regarding cryonics. At present I
find the situation somewhat confusing but with time things should become
clearer.
I simply want to go with the organization that offers the most advanced form
of suspension period as long as I can afford it with life insurance. I am
still not sure who I want to legally oversee the care of my body. I also
wonder where I would be safest while frozen, California?(the big one just
might hit!), Arizona?(I don't want a plane from the nearby airport crashing
into me!) or Michigan?(if a snowstorm or tornado does not get me!) I am
curious to know where the the folks on this list would want to be stored.
I think Mike Darwin is what I would call a "realisic cynic". He has been in
the research trenches a long time and has a painfully accurate view of
things though I am more optimistic then he is. And yet many I think have a
pollyana view of things when it comes to being reanimated in some future
time where they supposedly will be able to repair ALL damage no matter how
botched the suspension methods were!
I would ask for feedback from those of you who read all least some of these
posts. What do you make of Mike Darwin's posts? What do think of the
current state of cryonics? Is there hope for reversible suspension even
within twenty years? This is one of the most important topics we could ever
discuss on this list considering the ramifications it could have for each of
us as individuals.
I really hope cryonics research companies do get listed on the stock
exchange so the capital can be generated to do research at a level where
consistant advances can be made in a sweeping and efficient manner. C'mon
friends, give me your thoughts! :)
Sincerely,
John Grigg
Message #12479
From: Thomas Donaldson <tdonald@hubble.dialix.com.au>
Subject: comments for Darwin and Skrecky
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:08:21 +1000 (EST)
Thanks to Doug Skrecky for his references, which I will look up and
evaluate myself.
I also note that he is leery of current fixation technology for similar
reasons to those which make me leery --- even if entire brains have been
fixed. I will say this: I think that the earliest technology to be used
in cryonics in a widespread way will be cryopreservation, that this will
be followed by the vitrification methods developed by 21st Century
Medicine, and that someday we will have a fixative which preserves us
without any need to keep the bodies especially cold. (Raising them to
a high temperature such as that for combustion, of course, still won't
be a good idea!). I'll also hazard the guess that by that time, we'll
be much more at home with space travel, and people could be preserved
far away from the Sun (or any other star) at very low temperatures.
I also note that in his discussion Mike comes close to agreeing with me
about the need for more direct experiments before we have a better
knowledge of whether or not current vitrification methods will work.
I will also say that if Mike chooses to be suspended, by whatever means,
his choice by its nature cannot be science. Science concerns knowledge;
whenever we act, it helps to have knowledge, yes, but no action can
be proved to be successful beforehand. If we're just discussing
something, we're dealing with knowledge. If we actually do something,
not only can something go wrong that we think we know, but all kinds of
unrelated unexpected things might also go wrong. Knowledge and action
are not and never will be the same. The two should not be confused.
And that's why it would be reasonable (if at all possible) to use the
current vitrification methods developed by 21st Century Medicine right now
for human cryonic suspension --- while we still don't have full KNOWLEDGE
that they will work.
Best and long long life to all,
Thomas Donaldson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #12480
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:01:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Skrecky <oberon@vcn.bc.ca>
Subject: comments Darwin
In Message #12475 Ettinger@aol.com wrote:
>Again, he berates us for failing to recognize the magnitude of the
>recent advances, or to act on that recognition. Yet again I note that
>much information is still not available to us,
>
I don't usually like to go out of my way to agree with Mike myself, but
in this case I think he does have a point. For example much information on
the superiority of ethylene glycol over glycerol, particularly for organ
preservation is available on the net. Just go to Pubmed at
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed and do a combined search on ethylene glycol
and cryopreservation.
The main reason for the superiority of ethylene glycol is its much
greater or faster penetration into tissue. Glycerol simply isn't in the
same league, and is greatly inferior for cryopreservation purposes. I
beleive Mike has also done some work on this.
The next advance for cryonics was made a long time ago by
cryobiologists, and their work is available in abstract form on Pubmed.
The full research reports unfortunately are available only in medical
journals, but these are an enlightening read as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #12481
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: diana singh <dianamui@yahoo.com>
Subject: IPO/Money
Hi everyone,
I concur with John about making an IPO for a company
like 21CM. I urge the directors of these companies who
are in the forefront of cryonics research to try and
list their shares on the stock exchanges. Investors
are known these days to lap up hitech stock and some
of the companies have market cap 10 to 20 times their
entire turnover.
Here in India in the last few days three IT companies
have gone public and were over subscribed to the tune
of upto 65 times! One company Huges software systems
ltd got $1.3 billion when it wanted to collect only
$60 million in its IPO. If this is the scene here in
India I can imagine what possibilities exist for any
hitech venture in the US.
Mike Darwin wrote;
<Money is all well and good. It is precious, damn hard
to come by, and
absolutely essential. But it CANNOT, IT ABSOLUTELY
CANNOT buy the kind of
effort that has been going on here for the past few
years.>
Why should you let go of an opportunity to collect a
few million dollars from people who are willing to
give it to you? It will help you get the benefit of
more employees , equipment, experiments, and exposure
all of which are required to succeed in any endeavour.
Ayn Rand has said;
" Money demands of you the recognition that men must
work for their own benefit, not for their own injury,
for their gain not their loss - the recognition that
they are not beasts of burden , born to carry the
weight of your misery - that you must offer them
values , not wounds- that the common bond among men is
not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of
goods".
Death is a suffering which probably can be overcome by
cryonics and the products of new Biotech firms like
21CM...
Gurvinder
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #12482
From: "George Smith" <smithid@ix.netcom.com>
References: <199909300900.FAA20926@rho.pair.com>
Subject: Still NOT optimistic?
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:49:57 -0700
In message #12478, Mike Drawin replied to my earlier question:
>Does the optimistic tone of the patent application quoted mean that you,
>personally and/or professionally, are now optimistic regarding cryonics or
>not?
His reply was an extensive quote but (correct me if I'm wrong) he is NOT
optimistic about cryonics.
So Mike Darwin is NOT optimistic about cryonics and this new patent is about
research on cryonics?
I'm sorry. This doesn't make any sense to me.
If what you have developed is useful, shouldn't you be optimistic?
If it isn't useful, why are you posting here?
No joke. You have me stumped.
Having read carefully your long quote in reply to my question, I can only
say that something (for now) is far better than nothing.
IF YOU ARE RIGHT and cryonics today is a waste, our dead patients are dead.
IF YOU ARE WRONG and you dissuade even ONE PERSON from using cryonics to
restore their life in the future, then you are VERY WRONG and each victim of
your pessimistic opinion remains dead.
In any case, it still makes no sense for you to be pessimistic about
cryonics working while being optimistic about your research to make it work.
Sounds like you need to make a decision again.
Good luck.
George Smith
http://www.cryonics.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #12483
From: "Robert Moore" <robertmoore@hotmail.com>
Subject: I just want to live!
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:06:09 PDT
I am relatively new to cryonics. I thank Mike Darwin and others for
bringing up the subject of suspension protocols. I would like to reduce the
discussion(oversimplify, probably)to the consumer point of view:
I am a consumer who has decided to buy the product, cryonics. I must now
decide which organization(s) to buy from. I believe that my future revival
is strongly dependent on
1) the condition of my brain just prior to suspension
2) the quality of the suspension process
3) the integrity of storage
4) the quality of the revival process
I can't control 4) the revival process. So in making my choice I want to
evaluate the organizations' post-"death" response system, their suspension
protocol, and their storage arrangements. I feel I can effectively compare
the response systems and storage systems.
Evaluation of the suspension protocols is more difficult. Some cryonics
organizations seem to publish little information about their suspension
protocol. What is published is often sketchy or vague. Then finally, I
would probably need education in cryobiology with a specialty in human
cryosuspension to effectively compare the methods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My questions are
1) Has anybody done any independent comparison/analysis of suspension
methods? (I am not looking for sales literature, rather the "Consumer
Reports" version).
2) For Mike Darwin: I couldn't seem to find any specific recommendations in
your posts. If you were "dying" today, would you have yourself suspended?
What suspension protocol would you request? What organization would you
have do the suspension? Please help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to start any arguments here -- I just want live! Whether
chances of my future revival are 50% or .001% it is still better than 0% (I
know the most important thing is to get signed up with some organization),
but I want to improve the odds as much as possible.
......................................................................
Apologies and Disclaimers: 1) I apologize in advance for any toes stepped
on or for opening any old wounds. 2) I apologize for restating the obvious.
3) I am not as naive as my questions -- I understand it is difficult or
impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of suspension protocols prior to
seeing revival results. I have been following the Cryonet discussions for
nearly a year now, and I know that suspension procedures are an extreme
focus of the cryonics community. However, I think an attempt to answer the
question today from a consumer point of view would be educational (and
perhaps helpful for cryonics recruitment).
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #12484
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:44:16 -0400
From: Brook Norton <BrookandHelen@compuserve.com>
Subject: Mike Darwin's comments
Mike,
When you personally attack cryonicists' character, it greatly reduces the
effectiveness of the rest of your message. Presumeably you are posting to
get a message across. IMHO your potentially valuable message will reach
its potential when the personal attacks are deleted.
Brook Norton
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #12485
From: "George Smith" <smithid@ix.netcom.com>
References: <199909300900.FAA20926@rho.pair.com>
Subject: Something versus nothing.
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:23:14 -0700
In CryoNet #12478, if I understand correctly, Mike Darwin basically said
that he was NOT optimistic about cryonics, despite the optimism expressed in
the patent description recently being discussed.
I am truly saddened to understand that. I had hoped that he was at the very
least now going to become optimistic regarding reversible suspended
animation as a future option which would receive support from cryonics
organizations.
I wish he would reconsider.
I would suggest that it is pointless for any researchers into any form of
life extension to denigrate cryonics as it is because NO ONE TRULY KNOWS
WHAT IS GOING TO PROVE POSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE.
This isn't an issue of "proving a negative". It is simply an issue of
choosing between something versus nothing.
Cryonics as it is right now is "a reasonable gamble" (to quote Robert Anton
Wilson just this last August).
Cryonics is taking a person who dies and saying "let's take a gamble that
someday this condition may be fixable".
Mike Darwin does not currently believe this gamble is reasonable and that is
his choice. He may change his mind. I hope he does. Optimism is a choice
as is pessimism. Both are a personal estimate in the face of a future that
is unknown. (I can't see where pessimism has any value regardless, but then
again I am usually optimistic by nature).
The research being patented may or may not work to produce (someday)
reversable suspended animation.
The writings of those supporting this work seem optimistic about this
potential future technology working.
I hope they are right.
It will save many lives if they are right.
In the meantime, back here in reality on planet earth, today, here and now,
cryonics remains the only "gamble" available.
It is, it seems to me, an issue of choosing between something and nothing.
UNTIL there is something else, there is ONLY cryonics.
WHEN there MAY be something else, those who die without the benefit of the
new technology of suspended animation will STILL then only have ONE possible
option: cryonics (whether this is due to financial issues or technical
issues).
It seems clear to me that we are discussing apples and oranges here. The
possible development in the future of suspended animation through
vitrification (or whatever else is created) will offer an ALTERNATIVE to
freezing via cryonics.
If and when that future arrives, the same debate will continue between those
who choose to be pessimistic regarding cryonics and those who choose to be
optimistic.
It will still remain then as now a question of whether we freeze the person
we cannot place into suspended animation or abandon them.
I believe that something is better than nothing.
If you believe that the chances of cryonics working are zero, this does not
mean that you are right. It only means that you are pessimistic and not
willing to take a gamble that you may be wrong in order to save your own
life or the lives of others.
If you are feeling frustrated with others who do not agree with your current
20th century beliefs, this does not change the current reality.
Cryonics exists.
A few people who die now are being frozen now.
Others who have already died are already frozen.
Anyone who dies NOW, TODAY still has NO OTHER OPTION (unless you consider
the grave or crematorium an "option").
If you believe that the cryonics option will never work, there are only two
possibilities:
You will someday be proven either right or wrong.
If you are right and cryonics never works, those who died and were frozen
will remain dead. No change. No gain. No loss.
If you are wrong and cryonics someday DOES work, then every person you
persuaded to NOT use cryonics who dies stays dead. Great loss.
>From a strictly moral viewpoint, cryonics MIGHT save human lives.
You CAN'T KNOW that it won't.
The cost is minimal.
The reward is great.
Something is better than nothing.
Life is better than death.
I urge everyone reading this to let go of personality issues, to let go of
hubris and at least be honest.
Cryonics might work. Until there are alternatives to ADD ON (such as
reversible suspended animation or intervention from an extraterrestrial
civilzation or whatever), it is the ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE TODAY.
Something is better than nothing.
Hedge your bets. Support cryonics or at the very least don't attack it.
There is no other option available.
It also seems to me tat supporting cryonics is the only moral option
available if you value human life and acknowledge you are not omniscient.
It just might work.
You have nothing to lose ...except your life and the lives of others.
George Smith
http://www.cryonics.org
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:22 MST