Mike wrote to New Cryonet
> These things are important to me because I believe the US and the world are
> headed for economic and social chaos, including runaway inflation of the
> and if either the organizations' patient care funds or the storage facilities
> vulnerable, we're all dead.
Like others I worry over these issues. If you take the position that great
social/economic chaos will occur before reanimations can be done, it starts to
seem doubtful that cryopatients will be maintained long enough to be reanimated.
If so, then it would seem that the best way to proceed is not to have to depend
on expensive, uninterrupted, very cold storage. Warmer storage, which might even
be in permafrost, with appropriate fixative or preservative measures, would seem
to offer a better prospect. It might lower the cost also. Research needs to be
done. But the feeling that "research needs to be done *first*" can be a deadly
inhibitor. (In the 1960s there were those who said this about freezing people
also. If all had listened to them the cryonics enterprise would never have
gotten started, or at least not when it did, Bedford would not have been frozen,
etc. When someone goes down you want to do what you *can* regardless of any
research that has or has not been done.)
One idea that has been proposed is to do storage of patients at around
-80C--this is about dry ice temperature, though it would not have to happen with
dry ice. Some combination of cryoprotection and chemical fixation could also be
done to both protect against freezing damage and also keep the patient as viable
as possible if there were brief periods of warming, or if, for example, patients
had to be moved to some sort of natural storage environment (permafrost). A
temperature of -80 could be maintained by an electrically powered freezer which
I've been told is fairly economical (especially if packed with neuros or brains
only) granted costs of electricity and storage space must be taken into account.
In any case it appears that neither Alcor nor CI (nor ACS) are anywhere close to
ready to move in this direction, that is, to broaden their services to include
lower-cost alternatives which might also be more durable in case of
socioeconomic disruption. Maybe KrioRus is more compatible with this approach
but more is badly needed in this area.
I wrote him back...
You pointed to chaos before reanimation-- well, chaos will occur as agriculture fails as the ice age temperatures descend on us. The heliosphere has been shrinking for 50 years now and we're 500 years overdue in this 12,000 year warm period for another 100,000 cyclical ice age. Why are you ignoring this? Is it because you think it's "just another" existential risk to survival? It's the mother of all existential risks, actually. But I've emailed you on this before and like the rest of the cryonics community, you're now engaged in actual "reanimation suicide" apparently-- meaning that I have pointed out a clear indication of a reanimation showstopper and you're doing nothing about it-- not even referring to it. There can be no reanimation in a world of "chaos" as you charmingly put it-- a euphemism for "all hell breaking loose"-- and caused by starvation due to failing worldwide agriculture-- leading to massive depopulation. I now have to put you in the column of people who advocate (or who are not bothered by) massive depopulation thinking they, among the few "chosen ones" might be able to survive. It's a fundamentally fatal world view and extremely anti-cryonics since cryonics by defintion involves reanimation-- and reanimation by definition involves the relatively near future-- which now neccessarily involves the descent into the ice age. Unless cryonicists address the coming ice age, they, by definition are not cryonicists. They are preservationists only. This now includes you. You've been given your chance. firstname.lastname@example.org