Biostasis Summit

[jordansparks]

Andy and I will both be at the Biostasis Summit in Berkeley on May 17th.
https://www.globalcryonicssummit.com/
No, I can't find any sort of schedule. I think nearly all the biostasis talks are on Sun, 17th.

[jordansparks]

Found the list of speakers. It was not easy.
https://vitalistbay.com/ at the bottom

[jordansparks]

It just wrapped up, and it was fun. One thing I was very interested in trying to discover was why some of the scientists were still interested in traditional cryonics rather than chemical fixation. I think we're gradually winning. There was less pushback than before, and we informed them of some details that they hadn't really thought about in quite the right way. Some of them seem to be straddling both worlds, publishing papers that support both techniques. At this point, it seems to be mostly inertia and not enough interaction with scientists who view it differently. But there is still one sticky little emotional reason: A number of them seem to think that reversibility of some sort is imminent. If they can demonstrate that, then cryopreservation truly will be the technique with the best structural preservation. I pushed back on that very pointedly and directly. I reminded them that patients being treated right now need to be treated with the best technique currently available. I'm not sure if I used the word "unethical", but I certainly should have. Traditional cryonics as available to the public is very far from reversible, regardless of how close they might be in the lab. It's not until they are successful that we should consider switching from chemical fixation. But I think one reason why they weren't really listening is because they are not service providers. They are purely scientists. They are driven to do research on things that don't quite work yet. They think a lot about that, but they just don't give much thought to what would be better for patients right now. They are more interested in what might be possible in the future. Meanwhile, Alcor seems to be not interested at all in fixation because of even more inertia and a member base that has been conditioned for decades. Most Alcor members are busy living their lives instead of thinking about technical details. Alcor might still get new members for a while because the public is more interested in viability and biological revival even though Alcor is providing an inferior path to that endpoint. Yes, some of the Alcor folks got a little riled each time I proclaimed that "fixation was better quality", but that's a mainstream statement regarding scientific consensus. It's not some marketing slogan that I came up with.

[jordansparks]

Max Marty asked me about the problem of the inverse relationship among those who think life extension is imminent and interest in brain preservation. I answered poorly, so let me try again. First of all, I'm not familiar with that relationship. I think people who are interested in life extension are also far more interested in brain preservation than the general public. But moving on. What I was trying to say was that anti-aging is a very hard problem, harder than cancer. As with cancer, the breakthroughs are most likely to come gradually over many decades. Also as with cancer, it is very likely that we will not fully cure aging for an extremely long time. So, with those assumptions in place, I was pointing out how it might be similar to the ChatGPT moment. Once the first truly successful anti-aging product is available (<20yrs?), I think everyone will have a bit of an "ah-ha" moment. I think it will start to dawn on the masses that they might not need to die. I think that will lead to a burst of interest in brain preservation. That's why I listed that technology as one of the breakthroughs that would help us grow.