From: bsb2u@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Brian Samuel Bevins)
Subject: Is suspension necessary?
Originator: bsb2u@helga7.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:44:59 GMT


I am relatively new to the subject of cryonics, but I have been
following this newsgroup trying to understand some of the arguments
both pro and con cryonic suspension.  As I have gathered so far, the
cryonicist scenario (perhaps oversimplified) runs something like
this.  Upon "death" (in the normal sense of current medical
technology) the individual is placed in a frozen suspension for an
indefinite period of time.  Care of the body during this time is
provided by an organization (Is Alcor the only one?) with a
contractual obligation to maintain that care indefinitely.  This care
is paid for by a lump sum that draws interest over time sufficient
to cover the organization's costs.  The body is kept frozen until
medical technology has advanced sufficiently to revive the suspended
individual and cure their original ailments, injuries, etc.  Once the
technology reaches that point, the organization is contractually bound
to revive the patient and provide the necessary medical care.

The assumption seems to be that technology keeps advancing, so if
you wait long enough we'll eventually be able to cure anything.  It
may take centuries or even millenia, but it will eventually happen.
The future world into which the suspendees will awake is assumed to
be one of enormous material prosperity brought about by other
technological advances (e.g. nanotechnology).  Another common
assumption seems to be that travel to other inhabitable planets
will be not only possible, but common and cheap.

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?
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.

The contract with the preserving organization is largely the same,
only in this case there is no body to maintain.  It will be 
retrieved when it becomes possible to do so.

Many problems with this scenario are obvious, but they seem to me
to parallel the problems with the cryonic scenario:

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.

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?

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.  How can we predict
which of the things we can't do now we will ever be able to do?
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.  Even in those cases whether we will meet
ultimately with success cannot be accurately predicted, and the
possibilities being discussed here are centuries off at best.

-- 

-Brian Bevins
bsb2u@virginia.edu
bevins@cebaf.gov
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics