[ExI] chemo-preservation and fund raising

[Ben]

Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

 > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 9:32 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

 >
 >>  If chemo-preservation worked that would be great; far cheaper than
 >> cryonics.
 >

 >No, not "far cheaper". Only modestly cheaper than neurocryopreservation.
 >This error comes up again and again. The assumption seems to be that a
 >brain will somehow, magically, get chemically fixed in good time before
 >critical cellular damage has occurred without any costs being incurred.
 >

The same arguments apply to both methods here, so the initial stage of 
getting cryopreserved/chemically preserved in good time can be 
discounted when comparing methods.

The thing that concerns me more than anything is not cost per se, but 
long-term viability.  Cryonics is dependent on a continuous 
low-temperature state being guaranteed.  There are technical as well as 
political and social issues to be considered.  Even a temporary glitch 
in maintaining a low temperature would be disastrous to a cryopreserved 
brain, so it seems a fragile option.  On the other hand, a 
chemically-preserved brain could lie in someone's attic collecting dust 
for decades (or centuries), with no need for any care or attention.  It 
could be completely forgotten, regimes and laws could change, 
technological capabilities, power outages, social attitudes could all go 
all over the place, and the real difference is that the cryopreserved 
brain would need to be constantly kept at liquid nitrogen temperatures, 
but the chemopreserved one would simply have to avoid being deliberately 
destroyed.  Although cost does come into it.  Suppose a cryopreservation 
facility simply ran out of money, or had their assets confiscated, and 
was unable to continue to operate?  There's also the issue of which 
nations cryonics facilities are available in, and what kind of regimes 
are likely to be in existence there in the future.

I'm aware that chemopreservation is at a less advanced stage than 
cryopreservation, but I know which I'd prefer, if it came to the 
crunch.  Cryonics is always likely to be centralised, available at very 
few places, and so choice will be limited.  If chemopreservation becomes 
viable, it could be done anywhere that a team could be present, and once 
the procedure is finished, you could be an ornament on a mantelpiece 
anywhere in the world.  OK, maybe a slightly macabre ornament!  But your 
chemopreserved brain wouldn't have to look like a brain.  It could be 
embedded in a more aesthetically pleasing object.

Obviously, anyone who entertains ideas of being revived into a 
biological body without any intervening uploading stage has no choice 
here, but I'm not one of them.

I think that developing chemopreservation methods would be a very useful 
thing, and would offer another option for people to whom 
cryopreservation is not feasible or desirable.

Ben Zaiboc