I’d like to see more emphasis on the question: What do we have to do to make cryonics work?
The critics who dismiss cryonics for reasons like the failure points mentioned above have a defensible point of view, given how they’ve framed the problem.
Someone who thinks like an inventor knowledgeable about biology, by contrast, could say, “No, no, no! Cryonics won’t work if you do it THAT way!” He might then try to imagine end results of successful revival from cryostasis, then work backwards based on current scientific knowledge and a parsimonious use of foreseeable technologies to see what the exercise implies about the starting conditions.
If more people would do that, I think we could generate some useful insights into improving the front end of the process.
I’d like to see more emphasis on the question: What do we have to do to make cryonics work?
The critics who dismiss cryonics for reasons like the failure points mentioned above have a defensible point of view, given how they’ve framed the problem.
Someone who thinks like an inventor knowledgeable about biology, by contrast, could say, “No, no, no! Cryonics won’t work if you do it THAT way!” He might then try to imagine end results of successful revival from cryostasis, then work backwards based on current scientific knowledge and a parsimonious use of foreseeable technologies to see what the exercise implies about the starting conditions.
If more people would do that, I think we could generate some useful insights into improving the front end of the process.