Great. The failed paleofuture model of cryonics invented by David’s father in the 1960′s and 1970′s presents itself as the cutting edge. A recent book review in the Wall Street Journal describes CI as follows:
Mr. Gollner tours a creepy cryonics facility in Detroit, with interior design that looks like a budget, outdated version
of futurism; less iPod sleekness and more Atomic Age plastic flimsiness. He finds that it is little more than a high-tech cemetery, based on the dubious assumptions that medical science will someday be able to cure all disease and
that the frozen dead can be reanimated.
Alcor does better, but not radically so, considering that it hasn’t moved beyond the failed paleofuture model of circa 1990 cryonics based on Drexler’s illusory “nanotechnology.” But it has attracted people with a lot more financial resources than typical CI members, so I hang around it and bide my time for an opportunity to get it back on a track which makes medical and neuroscientific sense. (I have attrition working in my favor.)
I’d like to meet some cryonicists in person to discuss what cryonics in the 2020′s should look like, if you want to attend the Venturists’ Cryonics Convention in Laughlin, Nevada, this October and look me up:
I still have the scientific papers Mike Darwin sent me for his “cryonics intelligence test.” Email me and I can send you the ones I consider instructive: mark.plus@rocketmail.com
When asked a simple question about broad and controversial assertions, it is rude to link to outside resources tangentially related to the issue without providing (at minimum) a brief explanation of what those resources are intended to indicate.
So, in other words, the freezing process doesn’t work very well because 1) the people doing it suck at it, 2) laws get in the way, 3) the people doing it don’t have any money to use to deal with the problems, and 4) even if they had money they might do the wrong things with it?
Great. The failed paleofuture model of cryonics invented by David’s father in the 1960′s and 1970′s presents itself as the cutting edge. A recent book review in the Wall Street Journal describes CI as follows:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Venturists/message/1850
Alcor does better, but not radically so, considering that it hasn’t moved beyond the failed paleofuture model of circa 1990 cryonics based on Drexler’s illusory “nanotechnology.” But it has attracted people with a lot more financial resources than typical CI members, so I hang around it and bide my time for an opportunity to get it back on a track which makes medical and neuroscientific sense. (I have attrition working in my favor.)
I’d like to meet some cryonicists in person to discuss what cryonics in the 2020′s should look like, if you want to attend the Venturists’ Cryonics Convention in Laughlin, Nevada, this October and look me up:
http://venturist.info/venturist-faq-cryonics-conference-october-25-27-2013.html
I am confused. What are they doing wrong and what should they be doing instead?
You can start here to see where the practice of cryonics should go to get out of its pseudoscience and quackery morass:
http://chronopause.com/chronopause.com/index.php/2012/05/20/cryonics-intelligence-test-responses/index.html
I still have the scientific papers Mike Darwin sent me for his “cryonics intelligence test.” Email me and I can send you the ones I consider instructive: mark.plus@rocketmail.com
When asked a simple question about broad and controversial assertions, it is rude to link to outside resources tangentially related to the issue without providing (at minimum) a brief explanation of what those resources are intended to indicate.
So, in other words, the freezing process doesn’t work very well because 1) the people doing it suck at it, 2) laws get in the way, 3) the people doing it don’t have any money to use to deal with the problems, and 4) even if they had money they might do the wrong things with it?