Chp. 15 - Cryonics
By Ken Muldrew
...
That being said, a couple of questions go begging:
[*]Why not simply fix one's brain chemically and store it in formalin? This would provide better protection of neural circuits, storage would be less expensive and more robust, and any future technology that is sufficient to repair freezing damage or build new bodies de novo will surely be good enough to read the information stored in brain connections. Nobody has ever recovered function after chemical fixation, but the leap of faith necessary for such a procedure seems to be comparable to that employed in the standard cryonics gambit.
[*]Why are cryonicists not freezing animals alongside themselves, using identical techniques, so that the thawing and repair technologies can be tested and verified before being used on themselves? Presumably, future people will still only get one shot at thawing these people out. Since the cryopreservation procedures are likely to change radically as more scientific information becomes available, why not buy some insurance; something that can be used to test the efficacy of revival from the exact protocol that was used to freeze them? If the resuscitive techniques aren't up to scratch, keep the person in storage until a better method is developed. It seems that cryonicists have more faith in future people than perhaps is warranted.
This piece was written over 7 years ago, and since then it may have been discussed in the cryonics community at length. Yet the questions raised above seem compelling enough to echo here.
I'm specifically seeking a response from Brian given his expertise, but other knowledgeable forum members are also welcome to comment. If these questions have already been thoroughly addressed elsewhere online, please provide a link, regurgitation isn't required.
