X-Message-Number: 11378 Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 15:30:42 +0100 From: (John de Rivaz) Subject: Re: Let them rot? In article: <> writes: > > Chrissie Walton (#11360) seems to believe we should not impose > resurrection on those who have not expressed a desire for it. This view > has a degree of merit, but (as Mike Perry has pointed out) this is far > from the whole story or a balanced assessment. And this moral dilemma > applies not only to far-fetched conjectures about revival of remote > ancestors in the distant future, but also in many cases to our own > relatives here and now. > I see problems with this dilemma. One is that the boot could be on the other foot - relatives may impose their views on us, ie that rotting and buring is the correct way to go because God will look after you or maybe even punish you for doing otherwise. Although I suggest that cryopreservation is an act of gratitude for the prescious gift of life, a burning or rotting enthusiast could also argue that it is a sign of a lack of blind faith. (Blind faith is usually considered a virtue by all religions that have at some time been coopted as a tool of subjugation and authority. It is usually less promoted as a virtue in new religions that claim their adherents are "thinking for themsleves" and are more intelligent than the rest.) "Do as you would be done by" has a hollow ring, if you would want to call down wrath and revenge on anyone who thwarted your plans of cryopreservation yet you plan to thwart anyone else's plans of fire or bacteria and worms. On the other hand, if you have the chance of cryopreserving someone who has not expressed a wish for this process, then there is a parallel with the way that most parents treat their children. Most children would rather have fun than go for dental treatment or education. Yet a parent will take a child kicking and screaming to a dental surgeon on the basis that his adult life will be better if he has good teeth. Dr R.O. Nara, DDS, of the People's Dental Association, for example, says that bad teeth can knock 10 years off your life. Yet there is a hollow ring to this - it is now known that the excessive use of fillings in children applied during the 1950s and early 1960s was unneccessary and in fact may lead to less healthy teeth in later life. Decisions for other people are not easy. Anyone who cannot read and write would be lost in todays world, yet many children object to being taught. Another difficulty I see is that most people have two parents (some may not know their father, but I would expect this is not that common). One may already be dead. Or one may die under the control of the other, leaving just one still alive. A cryonicist may have full control over what happens to the "remains" of the other. But to cryopreserve that one knowing that (s)he will be reanimated to discover that cryopreservation was the right course and the partner was annihilated for ever? Hopefully these matters will be debated in detail over the comming weeks. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR Longevity Report: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Sauna/3748/lr.htm Fractal Report: http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/fr.htm PCS - a Singles listing sheet for people in Cornwall http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR/pcs.htm Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11378