Max More proposes evaluating cryonics providers by whether they can care for patients for decades
Max More proposes evaluating cryonics providers by whether they can care for patients for decades
On August 5, Max More published an essay on biostasis, the preservation of a person after legal death in the hope that future medicine may be able to restore them. He proposes evaluating both a cryonics provider’s performance during the first hours and its ability to care for a patient for decades.
On July 31, Jessica Radley and Aschwin de Wolf proposed evaluating biostasis methods by how well they preserve neuronal structure, which underlies memory and habits. More adds a second criterion: a well-preserved brain will not reach the era of future medicine if the organization responsible for its care does not survive long enough. During the first hours, a standby team prepares the body for storage and transports the patient. The organization must then continue buying liquid nitrogen, maintaining records, fulfilling contracts, and transferring responsibility to people who do not yet work there, all for decades.
In his essay, More states the risk directly: “You could be preserved in excellent condition but never reach the future because the organization eventually failed.” The condition of the body depends on the preservation technique. Whether the patient reaches the era of future medicine depends on the money, records, and people responsible for long-term care.
In a review of early cryonics, R. Michael Perry described seventeen documented cryopreservations performed before 1973. Only one resulted in continued preservation. In many of the other cases, money was a major factor.
More divides this responsibility into separate functions. One organization may enroll new members and help them arrange funding. Another may keep teams on standby to prepare the body for storage and transport the patient. A third may care for patients for years. A single institution can perform all these functions, or several organizations can divide them among themselves. Dividing them creates additional work: someone must select and assess contractors, coordinate their activities, and revise contracts when circumstances change.
For long-term care, More favors a nonprofit organization with an independent board. For organizations that combine member services, standby teams, and patient care, he proposes that members elect some directors while the current directors select the rest. He expects this structure to renew the board while preserving the organization’s purpose when the majority changes.
“The organizational challenge of biostasis is unusual: success must be measured over a century, not a decade.”
When choosing a cryonics provider, both the procedure on the day of death and the organization’s structure matter. Its bylaws, funding for patient care, leadership succession process, and contractor agreements determine who will remain responsible for the patient decades later.