From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Oct 19 1999 - 05:40:32 MDT
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, john grigg wrote:
>
> How do you folks think the Prometheus Project is doing presently?
John, it looks like the site (www.prometheus-project.org) is down.
The domain name seems gone as well.
Could you summarize what this was about? (I think I ran across it
at one point but if I believe my browser history files, I've looked
at 30,000+ pages on the net, so I suspect some of the older stuff
is getting squeezed out of my "wet" memory.)
>
> Will Dr. Fahey's prediction of fully reversible brain preservation a
> realistic one?
It depends on your definitions and conditions. There are many
animals we can use as examples that months of non-solid reduced
metabolism are feasible. Similarly there are dozens of cells
that have been frozen solid and revived. So it does not seem
that we have to invoke "magic physics" to achieve brain preservation.
However, very *long* term solid state preservation is probably impossible
due to the damage caused by the radioactive decay of the frozen atoms.
> Is working toward the goal of fully reversible full-body
> suspension just too unrealistic? I have heard many reports of
> how difficult it would be to do in a complex mammal such as ourselves.
You should probably go back through some old newspapers and look
at how steam engines or airplanes were treated. *Everything* is
unrealistic until it is actually done. Wasn't there some
controversy about how "silly" it was to buy Alaska? Are there
any estimates on the ROI from that purchase?
>
> What can we do as individuals and groups to aid the Prometheus Project?
> I realize alot has been done but serious fundraising must continue.
>
One thing that is important to assess in dealing with any project
is the relative costs & benefits vis-a-vis other opportunities.
I personally would invest in Zyvex before I would invest in something
like the P.P. Why? Because the development of molecular nanoassembly
has many more applications than that of reversible suspension. I
can build my nanohouse *and* have my aircar *and* probably extend
my life with nanobots if I have nanoassembly. I can't do all of
those things as readily (if at all) with reversible suspension.
If two opportunities are equally "unrealistic", you should support
the one with the larger market since it is likely to have a
better chance of gaining funding and providing a good ROI.
> I put to Paul the idea which he liked of approaching through mail or
> the phone the extreme wealthy to raise revenue though he said attempts
> earlier at it had failed for his project.
Dr. Klatz (president of the A4M) has discussed aspects of this with
me earlier this year. It is a problem of "believability". Wealthy
people (generally) are quite pragmatic about protecting their
money or utilizing it in effective ways. We all have a strong fear
of being "conned" (labeled by our peers as a fool) so wealthy people
would prefer to donate millions to a university to get a building
named after them than donate millions to an organization that
would be viewed as doing something "impossible".
> Could the Prometheus Project be neglected due to 21st Century Medicine?
Well, my impression is that 21CM is being funded by a single
individual. Once people become committed to something they
generally tend to stick with those things. Something like
the P.P. would have to sell the idea to an individual who has a
vested interest or figure out how to sell a more general
audience (i.e. venture capital) on the fact that it is doable.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:33 MST