Mark Your Calendars Today! BioStasis 2000 June of the Year 2000 Asilomar Conference Center Northern California ast quarter’s “The Failure Initial List Lof Cryonics,” by Saul Kent, drew a significant of Speakers: amount of mail, despite the fact that the entire text of this ar- ticle had previously appeared on the CryoNet online mailing Eric Drexler, list, as well as in The Ph.D. Immortalist. Many letters seemed to agree that more cry- onics research is necessary, Ralph Merkle, though just as many expressed Ph.D. optimism about the chances of current cryonics techniques working. In one way or an- Robert Newport, other, Mr. Kent’s piece in- M.D. spired three of our feature ar- ticles this time: “The Growth of Cryonics,” by Ralph Merkle, “Bioimpedance and Watch the Alcor Phoenix as Cryonics,” by Fred Chamber- details unfold! lain, and “No One Thinks It Artwork by Tim Hubley Will Work,” by Derek Strong. Clearly, controversy helps to focus our thinking. As you read this issue, ask yourself what specific questions in cry- onics, life extension, or nanotechnology bother you the most. Write to us and get these concerns into the open. Per- haps your thoughts will form the basis of yet another quarter’s issue of Cryonics. 2 Cryonics • 4th Qtr, 1998 Letters to the Editor The Failure of Cryonics progress, let me say that this isn’t be- cause of improvements in Alcor’s tech- The editor comments: Dear Cryonics: niques. Not long after I joined Alcor, the progress screeched to a halt, for I hope you’re right about that growth Saul Kent is certainly correct that it’s in reasons beyond our control, and only spurt and subsequent pay increase for the cryonics movement’s interest to recently resumed. You can lay credit cryonicists, Brett. I could certainly use have young people sign up. After all, for that perception of value on one man: a raise about now. <grin> it’s in the interest of any industry to Eric Drexler. He has provided techno- I agree with your attitude toward have a lot of customers who pay for a logically literate people with reason to suspension members’ ages. To put it service over decades before they re- believe that even the lousy suspensions another way: if every cryonicist were ceive it! But was it a good sign that we’re providing (brain riddled with older than 70 and there were 50 suspen- Alcor used to have a lot of young mem- cracks, torn membranes, and all) might sions per year, we’d be in no worse bers? I don’t think so. very well be worth the money. Because shape as long as 50 more septuagenar- I joined in my mid-twenties, con- nanotechnology will be able to put you ians per year signed up to fill the vacan- vinced that the service Alcor was then back together again, if you’re not rotted cies. The cryonics movement as a whole providing wasn’t worth the cost. I joined or cremated! And the more plausible is doing much better than that. to support the movement, in hope that nanotechnology becomes, the more cus- cryonics would be workable by the time tomers we will attract, for reasons I actually needed it. I was a true be- largely beyond our own control. I really * * * liever, as must be the case for anyone believe we’re poised for another growth who’ll lay out hard cash for a service spurt in the next few years, exceeding Editor: they can’t anticipate needing for de- anything we’ve experienced in the past. cades. (Or work providing that service The result will be an aging mem- Saul Kent recently said ( “The Failure at sub-minimum wages!) Any move- bership, much shorter times between of Cryonics,” Cryonics, 3Q 1998) ment needs true believers in its early sign-up and suspension, and the need “...cryonics hasn’t grown because no- years. But any movement which con- for Alcor to start paying competitive body thinks it will work!” and “...major tinues to rely on them is a failing move- wages and charging full costs, as there research advances leading to better and ment, because it’s a movement which won’t be enough true believers to carry more credible cryonics services is the isn’t convincing people that its service the load. But that’s not the death of only hope we have....” Near the end he is worth buying on its own merits. cryonics, that’s the birth! This long ges- says “Anyone who wishes to be put on Now, Saul would have us believe tation is finally coming to an end. a waiting list to receive a 21CM Pro- that the reason Alcor’s membership is Finally, don’t read this as a sugges- spectus should send their name, phone aging is that we represent the dying tion that we place all our reliance on number and postal address to....” and remnants of the people who joined up nanotechnology, and stop working to concludes with “...we should devote back then. Bunk! Alcor has more than advance cryonics techniques! Even if most of our attention, time and money four times the membership it had when nanotechnology were theoretically ca- to suspended animation research.” I first joined, despite the fact that a pable of fixing all the problems we have Under this strategy, signing up new large chunk of old membership jumped with current suspension (and that’s members (among other crucial activi- ship! The people who joined back then probably not true except under ideal ties) is viewed as a drain on resources thus have little effect on today’s mem- circumstances) we have to confront the which could be better used to achieve bership statistics. Logically, the only very real possibility that there will never “...major research advances....” This reason our membership is aging is that be enough cryonics suspendees to pay mono-strategy is a very poor one. Saul we’re attracting older people; not true for the necessary development costs for supports it with the enthusiasm of a believers, but customers! People are such specialized technology. The less salesman and unfortunately includes joining because they believe our ser- reliance we place on future capabilities, major inaccuracies and errors, a few of vice is worth the price right now. And I the better! which are mentioned in the following agree. paragraphs. Lest this be read as a wholesale Brett P. Bellmore, Saul’s major contention that “...cry- endorsement of Alcor’s technological Capac, MI onics hasn’t grown...” is contradicted 4th Qtr, 1998 • Cryonics 3 by the fact that Alcor (as Saul points good thing, that nanotechnology is fea- problem,” a level of concern which is out) was growing at a rate of about 30% sible, etc. See, for example, Cryonics, unjustified given the available evidence. per year for many years. He refers to July/August 1993, pages 22-24 for criti- Saul said “Until we have solid evi- this period as the “golden age of cryon- cal comments by David Pegg). dence that we can preserve the brain ics” and incorrectly attributes this phrase There has been a recent shift: hav- well enough to retain enough informa- to me. Anyone acquainted with the small ing learned there is a rhetorical advan- tion to maintain our identities, it is in- size and limited resources in cryonics tage in claiming that current methods appropriate, I believe, for us to criticize would have to agree that we have never cause information loss, critics will cryobiologists over their opinion that seen anything like a “golden age.” The sometimes make this claim. The valid- future repair of today’s frozen patients inaccurate phrase and incorrect attribu- ity of this criticism is undercut by their will be impossible.” The anonymous tion distract from the basic reality: Alcor clear lack of understanding of “infor- cryobiologist quoted above expressed was growing. Saul also points to the mation loss.” One critical cryobiologist his critical opinion. I think criticism of lack of growth and aging membership (who will remain nameless) said “When his statements is entirely appropriate, among the cryonics organizations with a protein unfolds or when a bit of DNA and that we should in general criticize which he is affiliated. Other explana- is oxidized or when even a carbohy- those who use faulty logic. This is par- tions for their lack of growth seem more drate is broken up, INFORMATION is ticularly true when we are discussing plausible, including their policy of not lost and there is no blue=print [sic] avail- matters of life and death, since the erro- recruiting people. able to regain the information like there neous conclusion that a person is al- Saul said (cryonet message #9684) is for fixing a car. The information lost ready dead can kill them. The burden of “... I believe that cryonics patients fro- cannot NOT [sic] be replaced by a ‘fix’ proof falls heavily on those who argue zen today (under reasonably good con- of the structure alone.” that cryonics does not work. ditions) have a much better chance of Clearly, damage to DNA can (and While Saul (and others) repeatedly revival than of winning the lottery.” in fact is) repaired. Future technology talk about “...massive damage...” they Considering Saul’s view that there is should be able to replace missing DNA provide no argument that this “dam- “...massive damage caused by the primi- by using redundant information from age” is likely to cause information theo- tive freezing methods we employ...,” other cells. Proteins that unfold do not retic death and hence no reason to be- that he is “desperate” and that “winning cause information loss, because each lieve their claims that current methods the lottery” is usually viewed as an ex- protein has one (or at most a few) func- are unlikely to work.