In article <1992May25.173240.18386 at yang.earlham.edu> allens at yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>> Are you counting molecular genetics under the category of
>nanotechnology? I wouldn't, and it's what I see as the most helpful
>possibility. Admittedly, I'm biased; I'm going into molecular genetics.
If you really want to talk about something that has both moral, philosophical
and medical implications, and isn't purely science fiction, one should
talk about genetic enhancement rather than cryonics. There is a good
chance that within a century or so we will have the capabilities of
engineering germ cell lines to the point that almost any characteristic
could be programmed into the individual. It is here that the most
likely promise of "immortality" lies, not in cryonics. By the time
the technology to revive these frozen fossils is in place (if ever),
those who would be doing the reviving may look upon the frozen
specimens as genetically hopeless and have no desire to resurrect
such poor specimens.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks N3JXP | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb at cadre.dsl.pitt.edu | it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
