Why not Cryonics

[Randy Smith]

In article <4vbvjj$kbm at mserv1.dl.ac.uk>, Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de 
says...
>
>
>
>On 18 Aug 1996, Randy Smith wrote:
>
>> I'm been investigating cryonics lately have yet to find any solid reasons 
why 
>> it won't work.
>
>Nobody can say anything about the feasibility of cryonics until the 
>first successful desuspension. However, vitrification is the only 
>currently known method to conserve the maximum possible amount of knowledge 
>about a biological system for an indefinite time.
> 
>> Anyone here have any good reasons why it won't work?
>
>- because strong nanotechnology (for nanoresurrection) is infeasible?

Why?


>
>- because it is insufficient to repair vitrification damage plus the 
>  malady which originally caused the demise & and then to yank the result 

How so? 
"Yank?" That would not seem to apply to a mature nanotech?

>  into living state? 
>
>- because no entity shortly before Singularity is goint to be interested  
>  in reconstructing nonfunctional dead meat of obsolescent design?
>
>> Randy Smith

I'll probably be revived by some grad student for his thesis :-)

What is the Singularity? Will it make people cold and unfeeling?



Randy Smith


>> 

>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>-- Eugene Leitl
>_______________________________________________________________________
>| ui22204 at sunmail.lrz-muenchen.de     | cryonics, nanotechnology,     |
>| Eugene.Leitl at uni-muenchen.de        | >H transhumanism, [...]       |
>| c438 at org.chemie.uni-muenchen.de     | "deus ex machina, v.0.0.alpha"|
>| http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~ui22204 | >H: "alpha-->omega"           |
>
>