mmm@cup.portal.COM (Mark Robert Thorson) (05/26/89)
I see two problems with cryonics. I've mentioned the first one before, the fact that the electrical state of your brain will be destroyed by freezing. This should be an experience similar to shock therapy; expect memory loss and personality changes. The other is radiation. If you're frozen for 50 years, your body will absorb 50 years of background radiation. Because your DNA repair enzymes will be inoperative during that time, it will be like being hit with a big flash of radiation. Now, I can just hear the cryo-advocates saying, "If you aren't frozen, you're for sure dead, but if you're frozen at least you've got a chance!" Oh really? What about the rights of the living? What impact will it have on society to allow billions of dollars of personal wealth to be tied up in the estates of people who expect to come back? Worse yet, what if these people DO come back, but in damaged form? Can you imagine what it would be like if the largest sector of private capital is held by doddering idiots with major brain damage and radiation sickness? Things are bad enough with the capital markets controlled by the doddering idiots in the insurance companies, S&L's, and mutual funds. [I think I detect a misconception here. The majority of people being frozen now, I believe, are kept as heads only; they are relying on a technology capable of reconstructing their entire bodies (from DNA). Currently, the estates of cryonically preserved people are executed just like other legally dead persons. However, if they were kept in trust, it would in general be *better* for society, since except for real estate, it would be equivalent to savings, and would form badly needed capital for society. --JoSH]
hkhenson@cup.portal.COM (H Keith Henson) (05/31/89)
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) proposes two problems for recovery from cryonic suspension. About the first, loss of short term memory, I think that the loss of the 12 hours prior to clinical death should be considered a blessing. (they are *not* fun.) Loss of short term memory due to interuption of brain metabolism happens in a number medical proceedures, and should not be considered equal to electroconvulsive treatments. The radiation question can be calculated. Background radiation is in the range of a rem/year, with (if I remember right) 5 rem being the yearly limit for radiation workers. A friend of mine has recently been treated with 5,000 rad to the brain in doses of upwards of 500 rad/treatment. (10,000 to the tumor area.) i.e., radiation should not be a problem for suspension patients for something between 500 and 5000 years, and should be mostly fixable anyway. If the future folks don't have the ability to bring us back in good shape, I hope they have sense enough to leave us frozen till they do. Keith Henson
alan@oz.nm.paradyne.COM (Alan Lovejoy) (05/31/89)
In article <8905310354.AA19574@athos.rutgers.edu> mmm@cup.portal.COM (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: > >I see two problems with cryonics. I've mentioned the first one before, >the fact that the electrical state of your brain will be destroyed by >freezing. This should be an experience similar to shock therapy; expect >memory loss and personality changes. It is possible to freeze and revive lower animal forms (e.g., frogs). Experiments on such animals show that memory is preserved during this process (as far as can be determined in a frog: learned responses to stimuli). The evidence gathered to date indicates that only short-term memories (on the scale of seconds or minutes) are stored in solely electronic form in the brain. Revived patients should remember what they had for dinner the day before they died. >The other is radiation. If you're frozen for 50 years, your body will >absorb 50 years of background radiation. Because your DNA repair enzymes >will be inoperative during that time, it will be like being hit with a >big flash of radiation. The cellular injuries due to freezing, whatever led to death, and the decay that occurred between death and freezing, simply dwarf the radiation damage that accrues over only a few centuries. It may be possible to reconstruct extinct animals whose DNA has been preserved in amber for millions of years. Why? Because a bit of flesh preserved in amber contains billions of cells. It is unilikely that all cells will be damaged in the same way. Statistical analysis can discover the "original" DNA with a very high probability of complete correctness. Similarly, memories in the brain (the only important information) are stored with high redundancy, and are highly non-localized. Statistical analysis should be able to recover them essentially intact from the brains of well-preserved cryonics patients. It is unlikely that damaged memory molecules will be mistaken for whole ones. The original state of the molecule can likely be inferred from knowledge of the allowed states and the processes that caused the damage, as well as statistical analysis of the state of surrounding molecules. >Now, I can just hear the cryo-advocates saying, "If you aren't frozen, >you're for sure dead, but if you're frozen at least you've got a chance!" >Oh really? What about the rights of the living? What impact will it have >on society to allow billions of dollars of personal wealth to be tied up in >the estates of people who expect to come back? What about the rights of the living? What impact will it have on the starving people in Africa if we permit Americans to go on living (and eating the food that should be going to Africa)? ANY MORAL/ETHICAL ARGUMENT ANYONE CAN RAISE AGAINST MAINTAINING OR REVIVING CRYONICS PATIENTS IS EQUALLY VALID WHEN APPLIED TO OTHERS!!!!!! Becoming or being a cryonics patient does not deprecate one's rights (any more than being an American--or an African--does). Being DEAD may deprecate one's rights. But cryonics patients, it they can OR MIGHT BE revived, ARE NOT (morally or ethically) DEAD!!!! Perhaps not even legally: a court in southern California issued a permanent injuction against the Riverside County Coroner preventing an autopsy on a cryonics patient (Mrs. Dora Kent) because the Alcor organization was able to convince the judge (by weight of expert testimony of eminent scientists) that Mrs. Kent might be revived some day. An autopsy would have lessened Mrs. Kent's prospects for revival quite considerably. Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL. Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne. They do not speak for me. ______________________________Down with Li Peng!________________________________ Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.
honig@ICS.UCI.EDU ("David A. Honig") (06/01/89)
In article <8905310354.AA19574@athos.rutgers.edu> mmm@cup.portal.COM (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: > >Now, I can just hear the cryo-advocates saying, "If you aren't frozen, >you're for sure dead, but if you're frozen at least you've got a chance!" >Oh really? What about the rights of the living? What impact will it have >on society to allow billions of dollars of personal wealth to be tied up in >the estates of people who expect to come back? Worse yet, what if these >people DO come back, but in damaged form? Can you imagine what it would be *flame on* Uh, excuse me, but the living have exactly the same rights as the person making their will ---and the person making the will can decide to do with their wealth as they please. Regardless of the consequences for others. No one has an obligation to act in a manner that others (ie, Mark Thorson) think appropriate. And if "society" makes laws prohibiting people from keeping their wealth bound up, that society is not worth continuing ---for it ignores the rights of individuals, which are primary. *flame off* And anyway, the cryogenic tombs will be employing people, buying things (like LN2), etc. Not that this matters to whether people have the *right* to do as they please. Cheers, David Honig
dave@rnms1.paradyne.COM (Dave Cameron (Consultant)) (06/02/89)
>In article <8905310354.AA19574@athos.rutgers.edu> mmm@cup.portal.COM (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >> >*flame on* > >Uh, excuse me, but the living have exactly the same rights as the >person making their will ---and the person making the will can decide to >do with their wealth as they please. Regardless of the consequences for >others. > David Honig I'm sorry but this is simply not correct. It is well established that a person's right to dispose of his/her wealth as he/she sees fit is SUBJECT TO THE WELFARE OF THE SOCIETY. (Its not just a good idea, its the law) The specific example I was given was: A sentimental widower dies, and not wanting anyone else to live in the house they shared, specifies that the house will be boarded up forever (and provides funds for the purpose). This can be overturned in court on the grounds that the having useful property unused is not in the best interest of the society. (The same with distructive clauses like "burn my stuff when i die"). Monitary foundations would not have this problem, as the wealth is "invested". However, perpetual trusts and trusts to fund a "worthless" expense would. The good news is that the courts give the will a big benifit of the doubt, but ITS THEIR CALL, and the principle remains intact. Dave "it's a cold world and then you're frozen" Cameron [Specifically, this depends on the legal status of the preservee. If s/he is (as is currently the case) considered legally dead, you are correct. If not, the law of eminent domain would apply, and although the government could still take your holdings, it would be required to pay for them. Interestingly enough, the Dora Kent case appears to have established a legal precedent that persons under suspension do have some residual rights. --JoSH]
pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (06/12/89)
By the way, Asimov once figured out that the vast majority of genetic
damage from background radiation comes from radioactive isotopes that
are actually incorporated into DNA. When an atom that just happens to
be near a DNA strand decays, there is a small probability that the
strand will be damaged; but if the atom was a part of the strand, the
probability of damage approaches 100%.
This suggests a possible prophylactic measure when preparing for
ultra-long-term storage: spend a year or two on a radiation-free diet
(including air, gotta watch that carbon 14).
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer pokey@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!pokey
"She was a girly girl and they were true men, the lords of creation, but she
pitted her wits against them and she won." -- Cordwainer Smithmerkle.pa@XEROX.COM (06/14/89)
[This message appeared on my doorstep with the double header that appears on messages after they've been through my posting apparatus, but I can't find it anywhere in the archives. I've changed the header so it won't get zapped by overzealous netnews software (I hope) so let's try again. Ralph: Assuming you would have noticed, has this message shown up before on the newsgroup? Anyone else: If you've sent something important that vanished, please resubmit it. There's at least one "silent trapdoor" in the news software I've become aware of recently that I can now avoid... --JoSH] mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) said: >I see two problems with cryonics. I've mentioned the first one before, >the fact that the electrical state of your brain will be destroyed by >freezing. This should be an experience similar to shock therapy; expect >memory loss and personality changes. >The other is radiation. If you're frozen for 50 years, your body will >absorb 50 years of background radiation. Because your DNA repair enzymes >will be inoperative during that time, it will be like being hit with a >big flash of radiation. To quote from "Freezing of living cells: mechanisms and implications" by Peter Mazur: "The only reactions that can occur in frozen aqueous systems at -196 degrees C are photophysical events such as the formation of free radicals and the production of breaks in macromolecules as a direct result of "hits" by background ionizing radiation or cosmic rays (96). Over a sufficiently long period of time, these direct ionizations can produce enough breaks or other damage in DNA to become deleterious after rewarming to physiological temperatures, especially since no enzymatic repair can occur at these very low temperatures. The dose of ionizing radiation that kills 63% of representative cultured mammalian cells at room temperature (1/e survival) is 200-400 rads (19). Because terrestrial background radiation is some 0.1 rad/yr, it ought to require some 2,000-4,000 yr at -196 degrees C to kill that fraction of a population of typical mammalian cells. Needless to say, direct experimental confirmation of this prediction is lacking, but there is no confirmed case of cell death ascribable to storage at -196 degrees C for some 2-15 yr and none even when cells are expose to levels of ionizing radiation some 100 times background for up to 5 yr (48). Furthermore, there is no evidence that storage at -196 degrees C results in the accumulation of chromosomal or genetic changes (6). Stability for centuries or millennia requires temperatures below -130 degrees C. Many cells stored above ~-80 degrees C are not stable, probably because traces of unfrozen solution still exist (54). They will die at rates ranging from several percent per hour to several percent per year depending on the temperature, the species and type of cell, and the composition of the medium in which they are frozen (52)." References: 96. Rice, F. O. History of radical trapping. In: Formation and Trapping of Free Radicals, edited by A. M. Bass and H. P. Broida. New York: Academic, 1960, p. 7. 19. Elkind, M. M., and G. F. Whitmore. The Radiobiology of Cultured Mammalian Cells. New York: Gordon and Breach, 1967. 48. Lyon, M. F., P. Glenister, and D. G. Whittingham. Long term viability of embryos stored under irradiation. In: Frozen Storage of Laboratory Animals, edited by G. H. Zeilmaker. Stuttgart, FRG: Fischer Verlag, 1981, p. 139-147. 6. Ashwood-Smith, M. J., and G. B. Friedmann. Lethal and chromosomal effects of freezing, thawing, storage time, and X-irradiation on mammalian cells preserved at -196 degrees in dimethyl sulfoxide. Cryobiology 16: 132-140, 1979. 54. Mazur, P. Cryobiology: the freezing of biological systems. Science 168: 939-949, 1970. 52. Mazur, P. Physical and chemical basis of injury in single-celled microorganisms subjected to freezing and thawing. In: Cryobiology, edited by H. T. Meryman. London: Academic, 1966, chapt. 6, p. 213-315. The theory that long-term storage of memory involves "reverberating circuits" that are subject to disruption by transient changes in brain neurochemistry has long since been laid to rest. All current generally accepted theories of long term memory involve chemical and physical changes at the synaptic level. Given the very redundant nature of the human brain, the level of damage required to seriously damage the long term mechanisms of memory storage would have to be extensive. To quote "Principles of Neural Science" by Kandel and Schwartz, page 813: "Although the physical changes representing learning are likely to be localized to specific neurons, the complex nature of learning ensures that these neurons are widely distributed in the nervous system. Therefore, even after extensive lesions, some trace can remain. Furthermore, the brain has the capacity to take even the limited information remaining, work it over, and reconstruct a good reproduction of the original." This quote is based on observations today of spontaneous recovery by patients with varying degrees of cerebral damage when "treated" by current medical technology. We can reasonably presume that analysis and repair at the molecular level using future technologies will be substantially more effective. In this regard, it is interesting that Bailey saw differences visible under the electron microscope in the appearance of identified synapses from trained sea snails (aplysia) versus the appearance of the same synapse in untrained sea snails. That is, training produced physical changes in the synaptic structure (larger synapse size, more pre-synaptic vessicles, etc.) [Craig H. Bailey, Mary Chen, 'Morphological basis of long-term habituation and sensitization in Aplysia' Science 220, 1983.04.01, 91-93]. Again, we can reasonably presume that electron microscopy is less effective than future methods at analyzing the structure of the synapse. It seems unlikely that all traces of the changes produced in this model system would be eliminated or even seriously altered by freezing. It seems very likely that the human brain stores information by the alteration of synaptic structure. Even if we presume that a mechanism which is fundamentally different from those already observed, (a presumption for which there is no positive evidence), it must still be a mechanism that is robust in the face of the wide range of physiological conditions encountered over many decades of life, and robust against the observed experimental manipulations of test animals that have recovered and display intact memories. This makes it likely that the proposed hypothetical memory mechanism will also be preserved by freezing. Finally, in the event that some information is in fact lost, the result of molecular repair is not "...doddering idiots with major brain damage and radiation sickness", but instead normal human beings with loss of some memories. If sufficient memory is lost, we can reasonably argue that cryonic suspension failed (the "repaired" person remembers little more than a new-born child) but the prospect of creating half-dead zombies must be dismissed as unlikely. Such a scenario presumes both that there are medical conditions which are inherently incurable by any future technology, and further that someone who has been cryonically suspended will be deliberately "restored" to such an incurable state (rather than left in cryonic suspension to await further technical developments). Ralph C. Merkle merkle@xerox.com