<html>
<body>
At 08:03 PM 5/17/2006, Ned Late wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Agreed, but no one, outside of
cryonics enthusiasts, that I personally have talked to has said
reanimation is feasible; that's all. No biggie, merely slightly
discouraging. </blockquote><br><br>
Inside cryonics, many people do not think reanimation is possible at this
time. I don't and I am signed up. Your question would have to
present a time frame in order to be viable, and that time frame would
have to have the rate of progress across many areas (basic STEEP + other
areas). <br><br>
The reason I do not rely on personal interviews as a reliable source is
because it would take a heck of a long time to first learn what their
information sources are. Peoples' knowledge base comes from their
information sources. If one person only listens to gossip, then he
will not have a balanced, unbiased knowledge about a topic. If
another person only reads the New York Times, he will not have a
balanced, unbiased knowledge about a topic. Where we obtain our
information affects the level of balance we have about any topic.
Not very many people have the time or patience to perform environment
scanning across domains. Further, not very many people understand
science or technology and if they do, a small percentage of them read
recent findings and reports on the development curve of same.
Lastly, patents that are in the process are highly confidential.<br><br>
So, the people you consult with may not have enough substantial
information to even be able to fully understand what is involved with
reanimation, let alone developments in the vitrification and
protectants.<br><br>
I have two brothers who are surgeons. Both are religious. One
agrees that cryonics could be feasible. The other laughs. They have
different personalities and influences accumulated through their
different medical training and specializations. (Beside, they both
also know nothing about nutrition.)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Look, only came to this list
because I once asked a professional (who has since died) if Extropy
consisted of libertarians. He replied "no they are all kinds"
and added one shouldn't give up so easily. </blockquote><br>
This is true and sound advice.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">But Keith Henson loses his
temper calling the post 'troll bait'. </blockquote><br>
What does one person have to do with the list? <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">See this is why I don't want to
be at all seriously involved.</blockquote><br>
I'm sorry to hear this, but it would be advantageous to you to actually
branch out and apply critical thinking to your thoughts and
ideas.<br><br>
Best wishes,<br><br>
Natasha<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha
</a><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Vita-More</a>
<dd>Cultural Strategist - Designer
<dd>President, <a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Extropy Institute</a>
<dd>Member, <a href="http://www.profuturists.com/">Association of
Professional Futurists</a>
<dd>Founder, <a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/">Transhumanist Arts
& Culture</a> <br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>If you draw a circle in the
sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and
everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. -
</i>Buckminster Fuller<br>
<br><br></font>
</dl></body>
</html>