X-Message-Number: 13360
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: for John Grigg
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:37:16 -0800

John, thank you for your efforts to share ideas I also consider very
valuable here on the Cryonet.

But what I have recently been posting is not mere optimism.  I have been
simply trying to point out the importance of expressing opinions AS
opinions.

Please notice that when opinions are expressed as FACTS, this then FALSELY
leads to pessimism or optimism based on straight line projections into the
future (as Robert Heinlein, the science fiction writer, often put it).

To my understanding, optimism AND perssimism are only a PERSONAL CHOICE we
make NOW in the face of an open ended future lacking proofs about whether
cryonics will someday work or not.

I am totally opposed to the statements of those who choose pessimism and
then promote it by using the ploy of masquarading their opinions as FACT.

This then becomes nothing more than deceitful propaganda whether believed in
then or not, in MY opinion.

And in this public forum it COULD cause the loss of life if, as I suspect,
cryonics DOES work but others taken in by such propaganda do NOT sign up for
cryonics as a consequence.

It is simply honest to tell the truth.

I DO NOT KNOW if cryonics will work.

But I do feel that SOMETHING is better than NOTHING.

Therefore it is sensible for me to CHOOSE OPTIMISM in the face of the above
two statements.

To choose pessimism based on opinions misrepresented as proven facts is an
error, in MY opinion.

To choose pessimism equates to choosing death if it turns out that cryonics
works.

OF COURSE we all want to see cryonics achieve its goal.

But it seems clear to me that it is easier to achieve a goal if you open
your eyes to acknowledge the difference between what you BELIEVE as opposed
to what you can PROVE.

Hell, that is what I could consider to be a functional description of the
ultimate difference between sanity and psychosis!

In any case, I refuse to call "nuts" those who cannot or will not rise to
this simple standard of honesty as I see it.  I have, however, observed that
some folks would rather be dead right (and buried six feet) than ever admit
they were wrong.  This is an all-too-human failing.

Please be careful to not let those who continue to tout opinion as proven
fact ever con you into CHOOSING unwarrented pessimism.  I see pessimism at
this preliminary stage in our technology as nothing more than a
self-defeating emotional beartrap which only maintains the status quo of
more unecessary human death.

Frankly it takes a firm determination to continue to CHOOSE optimism in a
world dominated by deathist attitudes. I am not at all surprised when I find
such attitudes expressed even here, by those I would expect to know better.
It IS the common cultural belief set.

I can understand how it is all too easy to be seduced by the almost total
peer pressure toward accepting death as "natural".  I believe that those who
have given into this pessimistic attitude have been seduced by this
pressure.  I believe this attitude is also demonstrated by those who
procrastinate and even reverse their earlier decision to choose cryonics
over the grave.

But I feel it makes perfect rational sense to do choose optimism, despite
the social pressures to maintain deathism.  This has always been my intent
in posting to this forum - to support this choice with reasons why I believe
it does make sense to do so.

I have never assumed that you, John, were the part of those who have been
seduced by pessimism and appreciate your efforts toward honest and
intellectual rigour.  I really hesitated to critique your posting for this
reason but felt compelled to place my desire to clarify this issue above
personal preference.

Thank you for your ongoing contributions!

Also very much your friend,

George Smith


> Message #13357
> From: "john grigg" <>
> Subject: For George Smith.....
> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:11:23 PST
>
> George Smith wrote:
> This is only an opinion regarding the state of present suspensions.
> It implies that we KNOW that suspensions are "fairly weak" at this time.
We
> DON'T know that.  Current suspension methods could prove to be more than
> adequate to do the job.  It is easy to express our opinions as fact.
> (end)
>
> It is an opinion but one that many of the best and brightest among us
would
> agree with.  Perhaps, future science will be able to restore totally the
> memories of those presently suspended.  But I don't want to gamble with
> cryonics any more then I have to! lol
>
> I agree with the point you constantly make that something(being signed up)
> is infinitely better then nothing(not being signed up).  But many of us
here
> are very uncomfortable with present methods and want the best odds we can
> get.
>
> If not for Saul Kent and Wil Faloon we would be really up the creek
without
> a paddle.  21st Century Medicine has made some excellent progress and I
look
> forward to further advances.  We all need to do our part to help with the
> next fundraiser Saul Kent will be putting forward to do research into
> improved brain suspension.
>
> I am grateful to have you as a voice of optimism and hope on Cryonet.  I
get
> somewhat depressed about our collective prospects and you do cheer me up.
I
> along with others, just want to move on to a higher degree of confidence
in
> what we are trying to do.
>
>
> your friend,
>
> John Grigg
>

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13360