CI member discovered 7 hours after being dead. CI#63April 30 2004 at 1:02 PM
|Rick (no login)|
At some point, we're going to have to ask "what is cryonics?" and how do we distinguish between cryonics and "freezing dead people"?
It took an entire day to determine if financing was in place?
|April 30 2004, 2:07 PM |
It seems to me that this is the second time in a row that CI had a problem with financing. Ben Best says it took a DAY to find out if #63 had financing in place-- this in addition to the 7 hours of being dead at room temperature. The previous "case", which I'll call the "Aborted #63" for now for lack of a better word, was cremated by the cousin due to some snuffau in CI financing arrangements. CI prides itself on not having any paid employees but I would think that somebody ought to be hired to go through the membership roles to see that member financing is set up. That doesnt' require nanotechnology or a singularity--- just plain ordinary paperwork.
What sort of grading system can we use for quality detemination?
|April 30 2004, 2:41 PM |
I'd like to see some sort of grading system for cryopreservations. If CI is going to insist on calling CI#63 a cryopreservation, then certainly it has to be differentiated from a carefully treated Alcor neuropreservation. Yet the media has no way to easily mark our performance as cryonicists. I'd like to see broad categories defined as we used to be categorized in grade school: A+, A, A-, B+ etc. Preservations would have to have two years associated with it-- the quality associated with the year it was performed and the quality associated with the current year. More soon. I think I've talked about this before in this forum but nobody picked up on it. CI#63 probably ranks E (2004).