X-Message-Number: 15544
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: Cryonics is our back up 
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:24:40 -0000

> Message #15536
> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:49:16 -0500
> From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <>
> Subject: Re: Cryonics is our back up #15514
> References: <>

<del>
> The topic of
> standards, however, can be the subject of serious discussion at *this*
> time between members of various organizations who want science-based
> cryonics procedures.  It may not be easy for some to put aside their
> "territorialism" and look at the betterment of the field as a whole, but
> continued factionalism in cryonics only adds to the view by outsiders of
> cultism.  There can still be room for variation and individuality.

I couldn't agree more. When I first put Longevity Report on the web in the
preamble to the contents list I wrote a short couple of paragraphs about
people fighting in burning houses.

Unfortunately human nature being what it is has the effect that once one
tiny insult is perceived in a debate positive feedback increases the insults
ad infinitum. This is probably the problem that the Christian ethic of
"turning the other cheek" was invented to solve. It was not really meant to
apply to a situation where A had smashed someone in the face with his fist,
but instead the situation where a slight, probably unintentional insult had
appeared. If the positive feedback doesn't start, or can be corrected, then
the incident quickly dissappears and reasoned debate continues.

But if answers are required of an organisation, they are more likely to be
obtained if the questioning is conscise and focussed. After all, you would
hardly go to a shop keeper and hit him in the face if his answers about the
goods on offer were unsatisfactory in content. You would either walk away or
ask a different question to try and get at the required information another
way.

I don't think my "time machine that transmits information to the past"
suggestion was invalid. By extraploation, conjecture and hypothesis, and as
suggested verification of intermediate levels of experiment,  you may be
able to get near the truth, but reverse time transmission  would be the only
way of getting the *exact* truth. Maybe it was innapropriate to suggest in
jest that Paul Wakfer try and make such equipment, if so I apologise. I am
sure that if anyone had the faintest idea as to how to proceed (without
impractical equipment such as lining up neturon stars etc) they would do so.

There was a point in my comments about conventional medical practise. That
point is, that nothing is perfect, certain or perfectly safe. But many
detractors of cryonics (oin general, not just on Cryonet) give the
impression that the establishment is perfection. (or maybe I take the worng
impression from them)

I try not to ask questions to make a point, but it did seem to me that my
question about how the medical profession treats questioning patients was a
valid one to ask given that Mrs Wakfer had stated her credentials and I was
genuinely interested in the answer. However I also felt that it could easy
be seen as a rhetorical question. I certainly valued her response, and
thanks for the time taken.

--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors'
report, an autobio and various other projects:
http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt
http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15544