From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Is suspension necessary?
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:59:16 GMT
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI

In article <1992Jul22.204459.8563@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
bsb2u@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Brian Samuel Bevins) writes:
> cryonicist scenario (perhaps oversimplified) runs something like
> this....

I think you've got the gist of it.

The arguments AGAINST cryonics in this group have in general been moral
or ethical ones, not technical ones.  That is, most of those opposed
have taken the stand that cryonics SHOULDN'T BE DONE, not that it CAN'T
BE MADE TO WORK.  In fact, I think that kind of ethical opposition
amounts to agreement that one believes the process CAN work, since if it
doesn't work there won't be any adverse impact on "future societies." 
The other moral argument has to do with allegations of fraud on the part
of cryonics organizations, but those have so far always been due to a
misunderstanding on the part of the objector as to what is actually
being "promised" by the cryonics organization.

> provided by an organization (Is Alcor the only one?) with a

No, there are several.  I don't remember whether a list of them has been
posted recently, but I think they'll be listed in the upcoming FAQ list.

> My question concerns what seems to me to be a natural extension
> of these ideas.  If you have faith that technology will eventually
> make *anything* possible, why bother with cryonic suspension?

I, personally, don't "have faith that technology will eventually make
*anything* possible," if "anything" includes things that are forbidden
by the laws of physics.  Before I'll buy into time travel, you have to
explain to me either A) why time travel DOES NOT violate any physical
laws, or B) what's incorrect about our understanding of the laws that
appear to get violated.

> Eventually time travel will be developed and the citizens of the
> future will have the capability to return to the present era,
> rescue the dying individual, and transport him/her to a future
> era where his/her condition is curable.

Why isn't this being done now?  If it's possible and therefore
inevitable, why aren't more bodies disappearing out of morgues and
graves?  Why aren't cured people being returned to our era, either to
stay or just to visit?  Or is this actually happening?  Elvis, where are you?

> Why would future individuals want to rescue all the people who have
> died in the past?  The same answers that have been offered to the
> question "Why would they want to revive frozen individuals?" would
> seem to apply.

For the most part, it would seem so.  Of course, one might postulate a
"time travel rescue fund" analogous to the suspension funding accounts
now in use, and predict that future rescuers are merely fulfilling some
sort of contractural obligation to certain individuals who "bought" the
rescue service.  In that case, the future rescuers wouldn't necessarily
"want to rescue all the people who have died in the past," but only the
ones who paid for it in advance.

> What if time travel is a physical impossibillity and so is never
> developed?  Same answers as to "What if it *never* becomes medically
> possible to revive a frozen individual?"  Many cryonics proponents
> seem to have complete faith that travel to other planets will become
> possible, so why not time travel?

Because as modern physics currently understands the nature of time and
the mathematics of "time travel," this "time travel" appears to be
fundamentally impossible.  In a sense you're right; if time travel is
never developed then the argument is similar to the "what if revival is
never practical" argument, but the selection of suspension over time
travel is also like the selection of freezing vs. formaldehyde: you look
at the relative likelihood of each working and the specific obstacles in
each case, then place your bets accordingly.  Freezing looks like a
better bet than time travel because there's nothing about the
freeze/revive cycle that appears to violate any fundamental laws of physics.

> The only serious objection I can see at present is this:  It may
> be that the medical techniques required to revive a "deanimate"
> individual are more likely to be developed than time travel.  This
> seems like a statement of faith at best.

Faith in modern physics, yes.

> How can we predict
> which of the things we can't do now we will ever be able to do?

We can't, really, but we can identify those things that appear to
contradict our current understanding of physics.  If our understanding
of physics changes, or somebody comes up with an explanation for why the
contradition was illusory, then it's time to reevaluate.  Otherwise, you
know how to bet (even if you still haven't achieved certainty) in
technology predictions.

> After all, we are not discussing controlled fusion, cross-species
> organ transplants, or some other technology that might not be too
> far off in the future.

Actually, some of us think that's EXACTLY what we're discussing.  Have
you, by the way, been reading sci.nanotech?  If not, you might want to
start following them, too, since much of that they're on about is a
precondition to what we're on about.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics