Re: Singularity-worship

Paul Wakfer (70023.3041@CompuServe.COM)
07 Dec 96 20:18:02 EST

On: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:26:05, Eugene Leitl wrote:

>On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
>> [...]
>> There are a few areas where the singularity meme makes me more
>> complacent (e.g. cryonics research), but they wouldn't be at the
>> top of my priority list anyway.
>See? The harm's done, already. The advent of Singularity is _not_
>certain, things sadly sigmoidal can delay it indefinitely (no, there is
>no such thing as a catastrophic breakdown in existance). Where will there
>be a decent suspension procedure, when you will need it, when cursing and
>moaning, while vomiting bile and gasping for air upon your deathbed?
>Consider the amount of qualified _scientists_ (not even good scientists)
>doing cryonics research, however puny. The area is virtually uncharted,
>very little quantitative work has been done. Heck, even the entire
>cryobiology discipline does not have _that_ many researchers.
>Even a single more competent individual would mean a large difference.
>Carving out a comfortable living in IT business seems straightforward, yet
>the world has a lot of IT professionals, already. Definitive results,
>whether positive or crushing, would be highly desirable. Don't hesitate to
>devote your life to cryobiology, even if you will never get rich in the

It is very refreshing to hear other people saying these things. I have always
believed that the effect of EOC (and now the singularity idea) on the eventual
success of cryonics has been a mixed blessing, at best, and perhaps an overall
negative. The reason that I decided to put all my efforts into promoting the
success of cryonics instead of direct life-extension (which I avidly pursue
personally) or nanotechnology (which would have been much more "fun", given my
background in engineering, math and physics), is precisely because so little
was being done and achieved in the area of cryonics (even in comparison to
life-extension and nanotechnology which I grant are grossly underfunded and

IMO, I do not exaggerate what others have stated, when I say that it is
*insane* for anyone who sincerely wants to *see* this wonderful future which
everyone on this list is so keen to *talk* about, to sit back and do virtually
nothing to promote cryonics and to see that less damaging cryopreservation
methods are found. This is especially true *because* of the extreme lack of
prior research on suspended animation. The science of this area is so little
charted that it may even turn out to be quite easy to do cryogenic suspended
animation. All we have to do is to find the right combination of chemicals to
use for the cryoprotective agent. The vast majority of such even reasonable
combinations haven't been assessed. And let me remind everyone for the
millionth time (and even Merkle agrees) -- we have no proof (and therefore it
may be false) that *anyone* cryopreserved by present techniques is coming back
with *any* of their mental faculties intact. Furthermore, we shall *have* no
such proof until something like the Prometheus Project is accomplished.

Currently, I *am* signed up, and doing and promoting cryonics research. And I
am pursuing a calorie restricted, mega-nutrient eating-style which my studies
indicate is the best that I can currently do to forestall the aging of my body.

BTW, if anyone is interested in calorie restriction (still the most "proven"
method) as a method of increasing your lifespan, you might like to subscribe to
the crsociety list as follows:

send mail to "" with the
following command in the body of your email message:

subscribe crsociety

Paul Wakfer
phone:909-481-9620 pager:800-805-2870


Check out the Prometheus Project web site at URL: