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.