In the 15 years I have been involved in cryonics I have observed a predictable pattern. An enthusiastic group of people want to create a new cryonics organization. Reasons can range from wanting to have a cryonics organization in their own continent or country (Europe, Australia) to having a distinctly different vision how cryonics should be practiced. Some of these attempts have succeeded and others have failed. The common denominator I have seen in the failed attempts is to do “something else” first before offering long-term maintenance. If this “something else” would simply comprise exercising due diligence in having a sensible financial and legal framework in place before accepting patients that is understandable. But here “something else” concerns achieving something even harder as a precondition for building a storage facility: creating state-of-the-art response capabilities.

One argument for this approach is that without adequate standby and stabilization having a cryonics storage facility is pointless. I do not think this is true and if this argument is followed to its logical conclusion there will never be a good moment to start offering storage as long as cryonics is as unpopular as it is right now. Sure, it is indisputable that a cryonics patient who receives a prompt response and good stabilization procedures will sustain less damage and better cryoprotection. This does not mean, however, that anything that falls short of this is doomed. The ultrastructure of the post-mortem brain is more robust than even most cryonicists assume and ice formation does not necessarily render the original structure of the brain un-inferable.

The other argument is often a variant on the idea that the most challenging element of a cryonics endeavour (i.e. storage) should be done last. But the hardest part of cryonics is not storage but standby. Creating cost-effective, dependable, responsible capabilities for a region larger than a city or small country is a non-trivial challenge. Let’s consider Europe for example. Providing standby coverage for all countries would require a massive initial investment with numerous medical professionals on retainers being available for a case at the right time at the right place…a case which may not happen for many years. Will such an organization be able to keep its supporters motivated and financially committed? In reality this mandate often creates a situation where the organization cannot live up to its standby claims, storage is (indefinitely) postponed, and interest wanes until the next attempt is made to do the same thing. It is no surprise, in my opinion, that some of the newer cryonics organizations (KrioRus, Oregon Cryonics) accepted patients for long term care from the get-go.

Standby is important and I do not pretend that it will take care of itself when there is storage. But whereas storage needs to be centralized (having a storage facility in each of the European countries at this point would be ludicrous) having sound and dependable standby capabilities is a decentralized process which can be pursued by different groups in different states or countries based on their different needs and (financial resources). As we speak, the UK and the Netherlands have made impressive efforts to create such capabilities and these efforts will further grow and spread when there is a facility with patients to care for. One needs to start somewhere and the most realistic path is to first create a sensible storage solution followed by de-centralized efforts to transport patients to the facility in the best possible condition.

Originally published as a column in Cryonics magazine, July – August, 2018