X-Message-Number: 10039
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 22:56:24 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #9998 - #10010

Hi everyone!

I will give a short reply to Paul Wakfer, who seems to encapsulate
the opposition to my opinion on cryonics and signing up.

First of all, please don't argue against many of the things I said,
because if you reread my message I was attributing those opinions to
others rather than to myself. I very likely agree with you about
the future of technology, etc. That, in fact, is part of what I was
saying: that we make certain assumptions which are by no means as
widely held as we think. I even agree with those assumptions, but
that was not my point.

Much of your argument comes from empirical data, and in that sense
it's meaningless to simply argue. I think virtually all people not
only disbelieve in the possibility that cryonics will work, but 
disbelieve in such things as the possibility that we will learn how
to make ourselves ageless (put briefly, immortal). You clearly do not.
Let us see how things work out, and then we'll know.

Yes, Haldeman was only one example, but I've personally spoken with
many people who just don't buy any part of our thesis: not only 
suspension but also what may happen afterwards. And as they would
see it, suspension alone simply won't provide benefit worthy of the
cost. Sure, they're wrong, but that wasn't my point. I was trying to
explicate THEIR viewpoint.

As for the merits of research, I've spoken already about that. It's
worth doing because it increases OUR chances of survival. It would
remain worth doing even if it had no effect whatever on recruitment.
(I will add that it probably will have a positive effect, but not
as much as you seem to believe --- ANY progress in cryonic suspension
will have a positive effect, by showing that we're truly working on
the problem and making progress with it too).

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10039