Cryonics
- Cryonicists aren’t crazy—they’re just really great, sexy optimists!
- Gregory Benford, Alcor Conference (2002)
Since physical law allows the possibility of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, we should take their potential development seriously. One result of their successful realization would be the ability to reverse the damage done to human tissues (including the brain) preserved at very low temperatures—a practice known as cryonics. This means that if nanotechnology and artificial intelligence are developed, cryonics will probably work. Nanotechnology pioneer Eric Drexler realized this early on, and argued forcibly for the likely success of cryonics in Chapter 9 of Engines of Creation. (Whether or not those who espouse this view are sexy, as Greg Benford maintains, we leave to the reader to decide.)
Though cryonics is commonly (and understandably, though lamentably) perceived as a fringe practice, the revival of a cryonics patient would (to apply my favorite litmus test) violate no known physical law—and it seems only a matter of time before the requisite technology is developed. Of course, to proceed scientifically we must conduct an experiment, and it has already started: at least two groups in the United States—the Alcor Life Extension Foundation and the Cryonics Institute—offer cryopreservation services to their members, paid for by a relatively modest annual membership fee and a larger cryopreservation fee (payable upon legal death and typically funded with life insurance). Among others, many scientists and technical types think that cryonics has a legitimate chance of success.
Top Ten Favorite Cryonicists
- UC Irvine physics professor and award-winning science fiction author
- Nanotechnology theorist, Georgia Tech professor, and co-inventor of public-key cryptography
- Renowned inventor, author, and winner of the National Medal of Technology
- Nanotechnology pioneer and cofounder of Foresight Institute
- Biogerontologist and founder of the Methuselah Mouse project
- Founder of the MIT AI and Media Labs, Toshiba Professor of EE and CS at MIT
- Extropian artist and former President of Extropy Institute
- Noted philosopher and founder of Extropy Institute
- Molecular biologist and Chairman of Advanced Cell Technology
- Fuzzy logic pioneer and professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California
Like most of the people on the above list, I am a member of Alcor, the older and larger of the two main cryonics organizations.
Opposition to cryonics is widespread, of course: almost everyone thinks that it obviously won’t work (i.e., it’s impossible or unfeasible) or that it shouldn’t work (i.e., it’s wrong). Unfortunately, everyone seems to have his own obvious reason! Ralph Merkle’s paper The Molecular Repair of the Brain describes in detail the scientific case for cryonics; Alcor’s FAQ addresses both scientific and ethical issues. My view, in a nutshell:
- Cryonics is possible because it is consistent with physical law.
- Cryonics is feasible because historical and technological trends point toward the development of the necessary technology some time this century.
- Cryonics is ethical because it involves individuals spending their own money in an attempt to save their own lives.
If you believe that you have a valid objection to cryonics, apply this test: could your argument be used against organ transplants in 1940? If not, it is probably new to me, and I’d like to hear your argument. (After all, I reserve the right to be wrong about anything, including cryonics.)
Artificial intelligence
Just as the laws of physics allow the manipulation of matter on the finest scales, so too do they allow the possibility of machines that think. After all, (some) human beings think, and we are made of atoms just like everything else. The only relevant questions center on making a thinking machine—how hard will it be; how long will it take?
There are many scientists and philosophers who argue, for one reason or another, that artificial intelligence (AI) is impossible. What they usually mean is that it must be very hard, and they can’t imagine how to do it—that is, they imply that a problem of practice is a problem of principle. As in the case of nanotechnology, all of these arguments must ultimately fail:
Since brains follow the laws of physics, artificial intelligence is possible in principle.
(Of course, many people reject the premise of this argument: they believe that human beings transcend physical law in some way, perhaps through an immaterial “soul” or “spirit”. Such people may be right, but it is more likely that what we identify as “spirit” is information, which is still fundamentally physical in nature. In any case, there is currently no credible evidence that human beings violate known physical law.)
Artificial intelligence will have even farther-reaching consequences than nanotechnology (among other things, a sufficiently advanced AI would immediately invent nanotechnology if necessary), but the implications are harder to see—we’re simply too stupid to think of all the implications! Nevertheless, there has been much inspired speculation over the years; my favorite is Ray Kurzweil’s book The Age of Spiritual Machines.
Older posts: 1 2
Subscribe