Re: cryofans, check this

From: E. Shaun Russell (
Date: Tue Jan 01 2002 - 11:58:36 MST

John Grigg wrote:

>E. Shaun Russell wrote:
> >Take the Chatsworth situation for example.
>What was the Chatsworth situation?

Admittedly, I only know most of the details second-hand, so it wouldn't be
fair for me to go into it. Chalk it up to a failed cryonics enterprise a
number of years ago in Southern California, where preserved patient upkeep
was almost non-existent. The patients eventually thawed and started to rot.

>So, what about the experiments done by Alcor with rabbit and dog brains?
>And what about the slides presented in the Asilomar conference by Dr. Greg
>Fahy, which showed the amazing improvements made through vitrification?

Well, such improvements are all good and well, but my point is that such
improvements *seem* to work on a dead rabbit and dog, but not on a live
human. Don't get me wrong: I do hope that progress in research constantly
gets done, but it still ultimately comes down to a question of faith in any
given organization's ability to primarily suspend you "well," and stay
around long enough to "bring you back" when the technology presents
itself. I do have a fair amount of faith in forthcoming technology (I
probably wouldn't be an extropian if I didn't), but I have marginally less
faith in an organization's current suspension techniques as well as
long-term staying power as a business.

>It does seem to me Dr. Jerry lemler is determined to raise Alcor to the
>next level. Whether or not he gets the funding to do so is very questionable.

I truly hope that Lemler can raise Alcor to the next level (whatever that
may be), but keep in mind that he is just one man, and had no experience
with cryonics until just under a year ago. I don't know enough about
Alcor's current protocol to know whether or not he has made any difference
for good or ill. It disturbs me somewhat that there have been no
scientifically detailed suspension reports being published publicly since
he has taken over.

>you continue:
>A lot of people will fall back on the idea that "any chance is better than
>no chance;" I agree that such is true...but when that "any chance" is
>.000001% as opposed to, say, 5%, then is that chance worth spending at
>least $28,000 (CI's numbers) on? I'm not so sure.
>Do you mean to say the odds with CI are .000001% and for Alcor 5%?? I
>think I have more "faith" in cryonics than you do. lol

Please don't misinterpret what I said. The percentages I mentioned are
purely hypothetical. I don't know if Alcor or CI can claim a 5% chance of
re-animation, nor do I know if they can only claim .000001%. As for you
having more "faith" in cryonics than I do, I should certainly hope so! You
have money on it...

>So Sean, do you think biotech within thirty or forty years will make us
>near-immortals? Do you feel for those of us fairly young and healthy that
>cryonics will not be necessary?

I honestly don't know. I am 22 now, and I figure I have a fairly good
chance at reaching 100, a decent chance at reaching a few decades more, and
a much less convincing chance I can hit 200. I don't really foresee any
huge breakthroughs in biotech that will automatically extend our lifespans
dramatically, but I think more incremental steps will come along more and
more regularly. I think that the primary limits to extended life will be
political and social, rather than technological. Governments are generally
xenophobic by nature. When working nanotech is in its infant stages, I
expect to see it strictly regulated in most countries; likewise with most
other foreseeable life-changing developments.

E. Shaun Russell Operations Officer, Extropy Institute
          Hear my music at:
                  ~K i n e t i c i z e Y o u r P o t e n t i a l~

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:32 MST