CryoNet #22644 - #22651

CryoNet - Mon 6 Oct 2003

    #22644: Re: a safe haven for cryonics? [John de Rivaz]
    #22645: Bill Warner [WalkerBill]
    #22646: Re: CryoNet #22636 - #22643 [Charles Platt]
    #22647: Re: The White Lodge of Cryonics [David Stodolsky]
    #22648: Re: CryoNet #22628 Greenhouse effect from fossil fuels [David 
Stodolsky]
    #22649: To move or not to move - that is the question [David Pizer]
    #22650: Re: CryoNet #22638 CO2phobia [Steve Harris]
    #22651: Re: CryoNet #22638 Erratum [Steve Harris]

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    cryonet-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe

To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    cryonet@xxxxxxxxxxx
(Note: A "Subject:" line starting the message body replaces
the "Subject:" line in the header.  This gives a second
opportunity to provide a meaningful subject line.)

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    archive@xxxxxxxxxxx
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "kqb@xxxxxxxxxxx".
    - Kevin Q. Brown


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22644
From: "John de Rivaz" <John@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20031005090002.9852.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: a safe haven for cryonics?
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:03:34 +0100

Over the period likely to be required before reanimations are possible
legislatures may well change their views. As I have said previously, a lot
of this depends on whether individuals with power decide that their personal
careers or financial positions can be improved by attacking cryonics. If
these individuals also have persuasive ability, such as Stalin or Hitler,
then whatever the logic cryonics can be wiped out in their country. Just as
a supernova can explode in a galaxy and bathe it in life destroying
radiation, so can such an individual appear in any legislature anywhere.
Therefore no one country is intrinsically safer than any other over long
time periods.

For the survival of the concept of cryonics, all that is needed is for
technological progress to continue. If the universe supports the concept,
eventually the total of human knowledge will contain this fact.

The survival of individuals now cryopreserved is a rather different matter.
Their best chance may well lie in designing cryonics institutions so that
there is little financial or career advantages to be obtained in attacking
them.

Nevertheless, if there are two cryonics facilities near to each other
geographically yet in different legislatures, this could be helpful, but
whether dewars with patients inside could really be shipped across
international borders with one legislature unwilling is practicable is
another matter.

Smuggling was never popular with authorities, for example
see http://homepage.ntlworld.com/quantium/prussia-cove/carter.htm to read on
line a contemporary account of went on in Cornwall in the late eighteenth
century. The author was also aware of his mortality, which he discusses in
the article. Without cryonics to turn to he took up Methodism :-)

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22645
From: WalkerBill@xxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:50:02 EDT
Subject: Bill Warner

>3.) This shortening of the telomere is the basis of aging 

It is one type of aging. Mice have telomerase on in every cell, but still age 
from other causes (mitochondrial DNA damage, etc.) Bowhead whales, on the 
other hand, allow somatic cell telomeres to shorten (you won't find this on 
Pubmed yet, I haven't written it up), but still live 200 years.

>4.) The shortening of the telomere uncovers additional genes that code
for aging and eventually death.

No one has found "telomere position effect" in human cells with natural 
genes. (Dr. Joe Baur wasted his whole grad student stint trying, though).

As far as lengthening telomeres goes, there's already a program for a nanobot 
in every cell for not only lengthening telomeres, but selectively lengthening 
the shortest ones first. It's called telomerase... the trick is to turn it on 
when it's needed. -Bill



 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22646
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <other@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22636 - #22643

Christine Gaspar writes, "Surely we wont put up a fuss if an
American cryonics organization decides to set up shop here."

Great idea--so long as it isn't in British Columbia! You're
aware that they outlawed cryonics there? Canadian tolerance
has its limits, alas.

Also I would be interested in the paperwork required to move
wholebody cryopatients through Canadian customs. Quite apart
from the logistical challenge.

Rather than contemplating moving an American organization to
Canada, I would favor an entirely new Canadian-based cryonics
organization. The more organizations there are, the more
secure we should all feel.

--CP

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22647
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 19:17:08 +0200
Subject: Re: The White Lodge of Cryonics
From: David Stodolsky <david.stodolsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 08:40  PM, Peter Merel wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think this is supported by data. While there have been few
>> studies, unrealistic estimates of cost seem to generate a major
>> objection people have toward cryonics.
>
> I don't think cost perception by itself is a sufficent explanation for
> our wild unpopularity.

What we think is one thing, what the data tells us is something else, 
most often.


>
> After 2 generations of marketing, 2,999,999 people out of every
> 3,000,000 people on the planet find cryonics too vain, too threatening,
> too speculative, or too inaccessible for their needs. It should be
> obvious that this isn't about the price - it's about the product.
> People don't need our product, so they won't buy it at any price. Not
> even when it's free! Last year's New Scientist competition illustrated
> that.

It is obvious that we have no solid knowledge on this subject, 
scientifically speaking.

However, there is no doubt that people will tend to accept arrangements 
that follow from their way of life. Until such time that suspension is 
integrated in to one, we should only expect the 'deviants' (in the best 
sense of that term), to look to cryonics.


>
>> Suspended animation is widely
>> accepted as a future technology associated with space flight and many
>> people believe that it is within the range of current technology.
>
> Hundreds of millions of people love Star Trek and Star Wars. But only
> 12 guys walked on the moon. Just because someone says they like the
> idea of something doesn't mean they want to do it. They like it as a
> fantasy, a place to dream about. The everyday fantasist will no more
> shell out for cryonics than for Lagrange point colonies.

We have gone from 'impossible' to 'not a good idea', next is 'I thought 
of it first.'


>
>> The type of Zen which includes long fasts might be a better bet. The
>> most holy are men that have, thru starvation and consumption of
>> selected fluids, 'mummified' themselves.
>
> Suspect you're thinking of the old tao chiao immortality pill.

No. The ref is on CryoNet. I think the last stage involves sipping 
turpentine.


>
>> So, while the details of what is being suggested are probably
>> incorrect, the overall point is valid. Venturism, as currently
>> structured, doesn't function as system to guide persons toward cryonic
>> suspension as a logical and inevitable step, but only to protect those
>> already committed to it.
>
> If we place the noble venturists at the heart of the White Lodge we
> could think of it as an evangelical program for them. It would provide
> different paths of approach for different faiths, reinterpreting their
> holy texts to facilitate same. If they can't get from there to here any
> other way, why not build a bridge?

But to what? A new way of life must be institutionalized.


>
> Just as John Grigg says, the Masons have had a lot of success doing
> this. The friendly-society route would be considerably less dangerous
> and more accessible than starting up a church.

Perhaps, but the taxation, etc. is most likely different. A way of life 
will include ceremonies for key life events - coming of age, marriage, 
etc.


dss


>
David S. Stodolsky  davidstodolsky@xxxxxxx  SpamTo: bin@xxxxxxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22648
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 19:31:57 +0200
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22628 Greenhouse effect from fossil fuels
From: David Stodolsky <david.stodolsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Saturday, October 4, 2003, at 02:14  AM, Steve Harris wrote:

> Time for wind power and pebble bed fission reactors, folks.
>

No, it is time for people on this List to stop promoting oil industry / 
environmentalist propaganda that is counter to their own interest. One 
way to reduce fuel consumption is to limit population. This solution is 
counter to the promotion of any life extension technology.

There is no scientific evidence that global warming is occurring.

If warming is occurring, there is no evidence it is due to human 
activity.

If warming is occurring, it can be countered by trivial measures, such 
as detuning engines of commercial jets, which results in more upper 
atmospheric dust.

Refs:

http://dss.secureid.org/


The problems cryonicists face are either social in nature or socially 
generated 'resource' problems. Let's stop contributing to the second.


dss



David S. Stodolsky  davidstodolsky@xxxxxxx  SpamTo: bin@xxxxxxxxxxxx

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22649
From: "David Pizer" <davidpizer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: To move or not to move - that is the question
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:42:32 -0700

To Move or Not to Move - That is the Question



Christine said:  "With regards to the difficulties surrounding Alcor and CI 
these days, one can always consider relocating cryonics services to Canada."

Actually B.C. Canada already has laws that discriminate against cryonics. Some 
American cryonicists, Mike Darwin, have been barred from entering Canada.

 There is a real danger in moving any cryonics organization.  The chances are 
the new place will be worse.  Alcor and CI are having some difficulties right 
now, but in my experienced judgement both companies will overcome these, unless 
some new horrible thing is uncovered.  Moving to anywhere else would be a big 
gamble.  Successful cryonics companies don't gamble (unless they are forced 
to), because they are responsible for a lot of helpless people (the patients) 
who cannot fend for themselves.

I don't think Alcor will be moving unless things get as bad for them as they 
did in the 90s in California. Then there was no choice - move or be ground to 
dust.  ("Ground to dust" is my personal opinion of what would have happened if 
Alcor has stayed there - I am sure there are some old timers, like myself, who 
might disagree with my assessment.)


David

 



 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22650
From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20031005090002.9852.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22638 CO2phobia
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:43:43 -0700

> Message #22638
> From: WalkerBill@xxxxxxx
> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:31:30 EDT
> Subject: CO2phobia
>
> >Summary: we've seen what an increase of 87 ppm did. We
can't
> really take another 170 ppm (twice that) without real
> problems.
>
> Let's not be parochial here. The planet had far more life
when the CO2 level
> was closer to 1% than the current 0.037%. In fact, it may
be the only way to
> stop an Ice Age. So you have to replace your poodle with a
Deinonychus, it's
> better than global ice sheets.



COMMENT



I'd like to see a cite for your factoid. The Earth during
the age of land plants and

dinosaurs (certainly Deinonychus) ran at CO2 levels around 3
to 6 times current

levels (1000-2000 ppm = 0.1 to 0.2%). During the rare ice
ages hundreds of millions of

years ago CO2  levels dropped, but that was probably effect
rather than cause, since

such times were rare, and the levels were far higher than
they are now. Thus, we may

not be able to prevent ice ages even by raising CO2s to
those levels, but we'll still end

up raising the global temps to the tropical temps typical of
the carboniferous era. That's not

a good thing. Here's MY cite:



http://www.nature.com/cgitaf/google_referrer.taf?article_pro
duct_code=NATURE&fulltext_filename=/nature/journal/v411/n683
5/full/411287a0_fs.html&_UserReference=C0A804ED46539721F8276
DE2030F3F80C04B. This is the web address for Nature 411,
287 - 290 (2001); doi:10.1038/35077041.



I've been able to find suggestions that CO2 might have been
as high as 0.6 % 1.5 billion years ago, but

life was mostly in the seas then, and in any case the sun
was a lot cooler, so that doesn't mean it would

work now.



Ice ages are probably environmentally benign, since the come
on and retreat at time scales of 10,000 years

or more, which time enough to let plants and whole
ecosystems migrate. But do that in 50 years, and temp

change from north to south generally outrun the plants, and
then you get mass extinction. Let's not go there, is

my message.




> >Time for wind power and pebble bed fission reactors,
>
> Can't argue with that. Some He-3/deuterium reactors would
be nice too, while
> we're discussing the alternate world where people are
numerate enough to know
> that coal power plants release 100 times the radioactivity
that even
> old-technology fission plants do.



COMMENT:



Indeed, though that doesn't count the radioactivity if waste
or that released in accidents and

meltdowns. Thus the need for pebble bed technology. The
problem with fusion reactions such as

you mention is that they cause even worse radioactive waste
problems (neutron activation), plus

the problem that the technology is three decades in the
future. And has been three decades in the

future for many decades now :).



Hydrogen was mentioned in another message, and I have to
second that, so long as it's understood

that hydrogen isn't an energy source, so much as a way to
transport energy from fossil fuels in a

way which allows us to remove and bury CO2 at fossil fuel
usage point, rather than releasing it into

the air at the energy usage point. In other words, there is
a way to get energy out of fossil fuels safely,

and that is to use the energy from carbon and petroleum
oxidation to (directly or indirectly)
split water into hydrogen and oxygen, use the hydrogen in a
hydrogen economy, and pump the

CO2 back down gas wells, where it eventually combines with
rock and doesn't get into the

atmosphere. That's been prohibitively expensive until
recently, but new ceramic filters which
can separate out H2 from CO2 in the water-gas from coal
gasification, may actually make

this technically feasible here shortly. And we have huge
energy reserves in coal, which are all

perfectly usable if we extract the energy in that manner for
a hydrogen economy, rather than

burning the coal directly.



Steve Harris

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #22651
From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20031005090002.9852.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #22638 Erratum
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:56:01 -0700

> Message #22638
> From: WalkerBill@xxxxxxx
> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:31:30 EDT
> Subject: CO2phobia
> Can't argue with that. Some He-3/deuterium reactors would
be nice too,


Wups, to correct an error: He-3/deuterium doesn't produce
neutrons, so forget
my remarks about neutron activation for that case. The only
problem is getting together
enough helium-3. We'd probably have to get it from tritium
from neutron
irradiation of deuterium in fission reactions, and when you
get done with all of
THAT, why not just generate energy from fission in the first
place?

Sorry about the light length problems, also.

SBH

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************