= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kenb comments on Suspended Animation Inc. accused of incompetence - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
You've been saying it by implication. See below.
There is no present technology for preserving people in a "fairly pristine state" at cryogenic temperatures. Present cryopreservation technology even under perfect conditions causes biological effects such as toxicity and fracturing that are far more damaging than the types of problems you've expressed concern about. Even if the hypothermic phase of cryonics were done perfectly, with completely reversibility, what happens during the cryothermic phase is so extreme as to make the damage from poorly-executed blood washout insignificant by comparison.
If you believe that for cryonics to work, preservation must be so pristine that the number of minutes taken for a femoral cannulation can determine whether cryonics succeeds or fails, then you necessarily believe that cryonics today cannot work no matter who does it. That's because enormously worse damage is unavoidably done during cooling to liquid nitrogen temperature.
Cryobiologists wouldn't be impressed if the Mayo Clinic did cryopreservations. Who does cryopreservations is just window dressing as far as cryobologists are concerned. They know that technology for preserving people or human organs in a reversible state (as reversibility is currently understood in medicine), doesn't exist. Most cryobiologists would regard the idea of repairing organs that had cracked along fracture planes as preposterous, as I'm sure you do if you believe that 300 mmHg arterial pressure or one hour of ischemia is fatal to a cryonics patient.
In summary, the force with which you believe that departures from clinical ideals in the hypothermic phase of cryonics are fatal necessarily means that you believe the cryothermic phase of cryonics today is fatal no matter who does it. As a cryobiologist, I'm telling you that the damage of cryothermic preservation is that bad independent of who does it. The technology for "fairly pristine" just isn't there.
Maybe you are projecting here about why you took your job at SA four years ago (the medical history part, I mean). I don't care about making history, I care about surviving history. As far as cons go, there has never been a bigger money losing pit for individuals than cryonics. Anyone who bothers to look will see that money Alcor receives is either spent on legitimate activities or set aside to ensure continuity of patient care, and long-term survival of the organization. I don't have to tell you how modest compensation is at CI. Saul Kent often observes wryly that cryonics is the most famous least successful idea in history. I'll add to that, least personally rewarding. In what other fields do sincere people have the opportunity to be mercilessly pummeled as dishonest, incompetent, ignorant, unethical, con men while making below-market pay in most cases, and not seeing any results of their work for centuries, if ever? Although it's not my thing, cryonics would be great for S&M types.
I'm doing a text search, and I can't find where I used the word "catastrophic." In any case, the damage done by present cryopreservation techniques is extreme by conventional medical standards (e.g. decapitation). The real question is the significance of the damage in the context of preservation of brain information encoding memory and personal identity, which is what cryonics seeks to preserve.
For decades Alcor has sought to be conservative and perform the first hypothermic stages of cryonics to a standard closer to that of medicine rather than mortuary science to make the early stages of cryonics closer to reversible. This has drawn criticism from two opposite directions. Bob Ettinger has criticized this approach because it is expensive, and nanotechnology is likely "necessary and sufficient" for revival of cryonics patients even without aggressive care immediately following cardiac arrest. More recently, Melody Maxim has criticized Alcor and SA because they fail to consistently deliver care following cardiac arrest to medical standards (even though there are no recognized medical standards for cardiopulmonary support, medication, cannulation and perfusion of legally dead bodies in an ice bath destined for cryopreservation other than the standards established by the cryonicists she derides.) It appears that the only alternatives that will please all critics are to either not do standby/stabilization at all, or to do it to a much higher and even more expensive standard than now being achieved.
With respect to fracturing, fracturing in cryopreservation is explained here
http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CryopreservationAndFracturing.html
The problem is that there is still no known protocol for reliably cooling a large vitrified organ to temperatures ten or twenty degrees below the glass transition temperature without fracturing. More research needs to be done. Notwithstanding, there has been great progress in the past decade in developing engineering solutions to safe intermediate temperature storage. I gave a talk on this progress here
http://www.suspendedinc.com/conference/SA_conference.pdf
Alcor has experimentally used three different systems for intermediate temperature storage in the past decade. Some of these systems were grossly misrepresented by Larry Johnson as causing fracturing, rather than mitigating it (showing once again how difficult it is to make any progress in cryonics without the effort being misrepresented and used against you). In December 2008, the system described in the talk above was installed at Alcor. I'll be writing an article about it next year.
These systems reduce fractures compared to liquid nitrogen storage, but don't seem to eliminate them. Eliminating fracturing will require tedious research on cooling protocols. The research is tedious because it will likely require months, if not years, of holding at temperatures warmer than the final storage temperature to relieve thermal stress.
Finally, it is not "a little more expensive" to do storage at temperatures above liquid nitrogen temperature. It is about three times more expensive. It also took many years and six figures of research dollars to figure out it how to do it with a reliability more similar to that of liquid nitrogen rather than a mechanical freezer.