Re: Cryonics Thoughts

Keith M. Elis (
Wed, 02 Dec 1998 02:19:17 -0500

John Clark wrote:

>Perhaps we will have nanotechnology by then [2030-40], but I wouldn't bet my
> life on it.

Hmm. Some have said that nanotech is inevitable, Feynman for one. (Or at least Feynman said something along those lines in /There's Plenty of Room.../.) If so, I wonder if a true cryonicist, if that is the term, believing that nanotech is inevitable, would consider the option of having himself frozen *while still alive*.

Okay, so it might be considered 'assisted suicide' and thus illegal by any one of the number of ridiculous laws we have hanging around at this time, and Alcor would probably not agree to participate in such a bad-press-bringing event, but does it not seem reasonable? In fact, it would probably be a good idea to freeze yourself as young as you possibly can. This allows you to avoid the cellular deterioration of aging and at the same time gamble on the youthfulness of your brain to re-self-organize for scanning, 'bouncing back' with possibly better results. That's little more than mere speculation. What is even littler more than mere speculation is that a younger person would probably have an easier time adjusting to the enormous changes that have occurred in the world he awakens to. Enormous changes if only in terms of the amazing new ability to resurrect frozen corpses.

One down side is that you're dead. Another down side is that you might not be able to come back. Another downside is that you might have been the one to discover the brand-new resuscitation technique that would have guaranteed that everyone could come back. If only you had stuck around, that is.

Has anyone ever made a *real* argument for this position before? Has anyone ever *done* this before (I mean that you've heard of, duh:)? If not, any takers?