Thanks for your thoughts on this Max, you laid out the situation most elegantly and comprehensively, as always.
All in all, after meeting him in person, I think Ariel certainly cares deeply about this field and the shared goals between traditional cryonics and brain preservation with chemical fixation. Hopefully this has given him (and others in the brain preservation space) plenty to consider regarding how they want to speak (and think) about these matters, because I’d love to see more constructive collaboration between the two approaches and hopefully that’s where we’re headed.
But, if there’s one positive thing I can say about Ariel’s intro, it’s that it was so *over the top* that it made for a great illustrative foil for pieces like this one and for my on-stage conversation. I suspect that if folks write about traditional cryopreservation unfairly in the future they will, at least, do us the common courtesy of being more obscure in their criticism.
I have no doubt that Ariel cares a lot about the field. That's why it was so disappointing and aggravating to see how he treated cryonics. That approach is not unexpected from outside, ignorant critics but that's not him. Ken Hayworth set this unfortunate and counterproductive tone.
There is a lot to like in the rest of the book, but the introduction makes it hard to recommend.
Thanks for your thoughts on this Max, you laid out the situation most elegantly and comprehensively, as always.
All in all, after meeting him in person, I think Ariel certainly cares deeply about this field and the shared goals between traditional cryonics and brain preservation with chemical fixation. Hopefully this has given him (and others in the brain preservation space) plenty to consider regarding how they want to speak (and think) about these matters, because I’d love to see more constructive collaboration between the two approaches and hopefully that’s where we’re headed.
But, if there’s one positive thing I can say about Ariel’s intro, it’s that it was so *over the top* that it made for a great illustrative foil for pieces like this one and for my on-stage conversation. I suspect that if folks write about traditional cryopreservation unfairly in the future they will, at least, do us the common courtesy of being more obscure in their criticism.
I have no doubt that Ariel cares a lot about the field. That's why it was so disappointing and aggravating to see how he treated cryonics. That approach is not unexpected from outside, ignorant critics but that's not him. Ken Hayworth set this unfortunate and counterproductive tone.
There is a lot to like in the rest of the book, but the introduction makes it hard to recommend.