[extropy-chat] Which Cryonics option is optimal?

[Bret Kulakovich]

Hi Jeffrey,

Here are:
1. Your points with my remarks.
2. My points, on why whole body was selected.

And a tidy preface: I am not an expert in the field of cryonics, but  
have read extensively for the sake of myself and my loved ones. I  
have formed some opinions. That's that. I can't tell you where  
identity takes place, but neither can anyone else : ). That is all  
philosophical interpretation and outside the context of your email,  
imho.


1. Your points with my remarks.

> - brain structure preservation still seems to be marginally  
> superior with Neuro.

There are so many variables on what makes a "good" preservation.  
Amount of time between death and preservation, distance from  
facilities, proper early care by medical/trauma staff who may or may  
not be familiar with your wishes, how well your washout goes, etc.

There are optimal circumstance. I'm sure many of us want to live the  
longest life with the highest quality possible, and end up with a  
nice clean cardiac arrest, before 5pm, on a workday, at a hospice in  
Scottsdale a hundred and fifty years from now.

Each of these things, and many others, can change the quality of your  
preservation by 1% or more, and they are cumulative. However, we do  
not know what an "optimal" preservation is, really, until we start  
reviving people and get to know how long their recovery takes, what  
challenges they face, etc. Only then can we study and make cases on  
what preservation processes and formulae worked better than others.

So if there are at times marginal differences in preservation, they  
would seem to be trivial given so many other factors. And at no point  
soon can we really state what marginal differences are really good or  
bad differences.


> - easier transport in emergencies.
> - emergency conversion to Neuro option is not necessary

Both true. Easier to store as well.


> - possibly less likely to be the first revival guinea pig as a  
> Neuro, and so perhaps a
>        lower chance of a disastrously failed revival.

I am pretty sure this is a Last Will and Testament issue, and not a  
preservation issue. You can do things to aid with your eventual  
recovery, like building a trust, etc. There are people that can  
better speak to this point, but I don't think you have to "be afraid"  
of being a revival guinea pig.


> - may actually be easier to revive a Neuro than a full-body- so  
> extra money may be
>        wasted- and could lead to delay in revival.

More speculation, which is fine - we can only speculate on neuro and  
full-body recovery costs.


> - a Neuro is substantially cheaper.

This is your most solid point. But I am curious as to how much  
cheaper per month you are talking, since you seem to be going the  
life insurance route anyhow. It sounds as though you are talking a  
difference of $20.


2. My points, on why whole body was selected.

I don't have any points that offer colossal wisdom or trump any of  
the points you've made. I offer the following:

- Given that we do not totally understand the human body, we could  
speculate that recovery from cryopreservation could be a lot easier  
with 'x', 'x' being something as yet undiscovered, and not found  
within the human head. (hey, people speculate we can grow new bodies  
and be recovered from cryo, don't be too quick to invalidate! : )

- The cost of full-body when compared to neuro and done through life  
insurance, isn't that much difference. Think of those "for the price  
of a cup of coffee" type commercials.

- Full-body is a lot easier for people to accept, particularly family  
members, or loved ones you want to "go forward" with you.

- I like my body. It could use some upgrades, but its not bad. Yes,  
that is corpocentric, but hey.

- I will point out,  that we cannot speak to the quality or  
technology of a new body, we can only speculate. I think that  
eventually, a person will be able to get a new body, and that some  
time after that point, that body will be superior to a "current" body.

- I like Futurama.


Bret




On May 19, 2006, at 2:18 PM, A B wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I intend to sign up for cryopreservation with Alcor in the near  
> future, but I'm not completely decided on which option I would  
> prefer: Neuropreservation Option (head only) or full-body (head +  
> body). Note: at this time, both options involve a supposedly  
> successful vitrification of the brain. Right now I'm leaning toward  
> Neuropreservation for a few reasons:
>
> - brain structure preservation still seems to be marginally  
> superior with Neuro.
> - easier transport in emergencies.
> - emergency conversion to Neuro option is not necessary.
> - possibly less likely to be the first revival guinea pig as a  
> Neuro, and so perhaps a
>        lower chance of a disastrously failed revival.
> - may actually be easier to revive a Neuro than a full-body- so  
> extra money may be
>        wasted- and could lead to delay in revival.
> - a Neuro is substantially cheaper.
>
> My inclination right now is to tentatively sign up as a Neuro, but  
> to hopefully purchase a life insurance policy that will barely  
> cover a full-body, in case I change my mind later.
>
> I would like to get the opinions of other Cryonicists regarding  
> which option is superior based on factors which I may have failed  
> to list here.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Jeffrey Herrlich
>
>
> Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone.  
> Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060524/4bbcd9a8/attachment.html>