X-Message-Number: 15585
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Just three more quick points to consider.
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:50:04 -0800

(1) Paul Wakfer seems to think that my suggestion to be courageous implies
one is already a coward, and if I ask someone to think clearly this implies
an insult to their "character".

But one can be encouraged to be courageous while they are not behaving in
any way in particular.  Maybe they're just sitting on their hands doing
nothing at all.  It is a suggestion to take action even if it requires being
willing to "be wrong".  Nothing more.

Additionally, asking someone to please think clearly does not mean they
CAN'T or DON'T do so on other issues.  It is a suggestion to apply clear
thinking ONCE AGAIN and assumes they CAN do it.  It is not insulting at all.
In fact it actually offers an implied compliment (I think you ARE capable of
thinking clearly and are NOT a moron).

In a nutshell, Paul, if not eating enough calories as part of your life
extension efforts is making you grumpy and causing you to jump to defensive
conclusions, live a little and enjoy yourself.  Relax.  Have a hamburger.

(2)  Jeff Grimes correctly noted that my argument (for choosing to sign up
for cryonics now since it is relatively inexpensive and offers the
POSSIBILITY of survival as opposed to the certainty of physical death) could
be applied to theological arguments for accepting spiritual salvation
through most Christian dogma.  ("Accept Christ as your personal savior
because you can't prove that doing this won't work, it's quick and easy to
do so, and if you don't and are wrong you will go to hell forever").

Actually I off hand forget the theologian in centuries past who first
popularized this argument (I believe it followed the Reformation) but the
same argument has also been applied to Islamic dogma, so this is not an
exclusively Christian issue at all.

I have rejected ONLY such religious arguments which required demanding I
reject all other such dogmas for this one to be accepted.  After all this
would again imply I KNEW who was absolutely right or wrong regarding a
future that remains unknown.  All such religious offers that do not demand
exclusive acceptance I HAVE accepted.

I see no difference in thinking regarding the choice of physical survival
through cryonics.  Current cryonics now available does not demand you reject
other methods for either physical (or even spiritual) survival.  It does, in
my opinion, require accepting the possibility that current cryonics methods
MIGHT work and that in turn requires a willingness to not pretend that you
already know that current methods CAN'T work.

And since no one CAN know now what CAN'T work later in this regard, the
argument seems to make a great deal of sense to me.

If it is insulting to imply that this is simple to understand, well I just
don't think it is insulting at all.  I just see it as being simple to
understand.  Period.

(3) Paul was right that there have been some folks (I do not know the
percentages) who have not been signed up for cryonics and who, in last
minute rushes at or following their deaths, have managed to get into
suspension after all.  I also don't know how many folks waited too long and
FAILED to get suspended as a consequence.

But why put your surviving relatives through that kind of emergency
experience when you obviously wanted suspension in the first place?  Why
risk your life needlessly when you do drive cars, ride airplanes, etc., by
NOT being prepared with the back up option of cryonics in place?  I mean if
you KNEW it would work, and you have publicly stated you WOULD do it if no
other option were available, why depend on luck alone?  Why assume that
everything in your particular situation will follow the statistical norm?

In all this I'm just advocating the Boy Scout motto of "Be Prepared".

That's how I see it.

George Smith
CI member

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15585