NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/cryonics/627

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 4.0 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!eff!news.byu.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!brain.med.virginia.edu!wk5w
From: [e-mail] (William Katz)
Subject: Cryonics, etc
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Medical Scientist Training Program, Univ. of Virginia
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:23:15 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert D Grahame) writes:
> [...]
>A good starter may be 'how did you get interested?'. In my case it was
>through interest in (non-extreme) methods of life extension. Even then , I
>didn't do much more than glance at the subject until I got interested in
>Drexler's stuff.
>
Ahhh.  K. Eric Drexler's "Engine of Creation" I assume.  When I was a
student at Stanford, a bunch of us went to Xerox Parc (circa 1985?) to hear
him talk about his then new ideas.  A real bright fellow ...

As I mentioned in my first posting, I just started reading this newsgroup
but am interested in the concept of cryonics.  I'm currently working towards
a M.D. and a Ph.D. in Biomed Eng (emphasis on AI, computer vision, medical
imaging).  I'd like to approach cryonics from the standpoint of possibly
reviving sleepers by imaging and reconstructing the central nervous system,
with the "mind" of the individual either being placed in electromechanical
or biological shells.  Obviously, if nanotechnology or some other discipline
allows complete regeneration of the frozen tissue, and repair of pre-freezing
damage, then we wouldn't need such methods.

From the responses to my previous post, it sounds like only legally dead
individuals are being frozen at the current time.  I have no problems with
this.  I would have a problem with freezing individuals before death.
The reason is the destruction of the grieving process for the patient and
his/her loved ones. If the freezee has no loved ones that would require
a grieving process, see the problems mentioned below.

Beyond the technical issues though, what makes people think that the people
of the future will *want* to spend the energy and resources to revive some
relic from the past (unless they are your descendents)?  If cryonics gains
in popularity, you can imagine thousands of frozen people waiting for
"reawakening".  If our future is so much more advanced, we will all be
uneducated buffoons compared to our contemporaries.  I can see where they
might want to reawaken the Einstein or Newton of our generation, but what
about the rest of us?  Unless you have left (1) a fortune to maintain
your body and regenerate it with a very stable, long-lasting legal firm, or
(2) descendents who really want to see their great-grand pappy or mommy,
you are on the short list for burial.  The problem with #1 is obvious.
In times like this it is easy to see how companies could go bankrupt.  How
can you guarantee that your holder will be around to maintain you until
you can be awoken?

>>3) Cryonics is merely another medical procedure, and a lot less costly than
>>many other medical procedures.  For instance, the entire cost of cancer ...
>
>Yes, well, lobotomy is merely another medical procedure, and it's cheaper.
><grin>
>We need far more real medical evidence that cryonics will work before this
>argument works well. That said, some familiarity with medical procedures is
>helpful, as proof that people can survive states in which neuronal firing is
>temporarily disrupted, and so that the actual suspension techniques are less
>shocking. Also, this could make people realise that 'death' is not such a
>black & white state. Dead in 1700 is just 'critical' in 1992.
>
We really shouldn't freeze before legal death.  Why bother?  Does cryonics
actually keep some vital element intact that requires preservation *before*
death?

-Bill