X-Message-Number: 1563 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 13:00:27 GMT From: Subject: CRYONICS Thank you all very much for your replies, it is good to know other people consider the bad possiblities of suspension as well as the good possibities. But as you point out life itself, either animated or suspended, will always involve risk. We run the risk of nightmare scenarios everyday. For example, I could be involved in a road traffic accident tomorrow and end up completely paralysed for the rest of my life. Strangely I don't worry about this at all. I suppose it's because it is a risk that everyone takes everyday. I think there must be some sort of `herd instinct', which allays fears if one does what everyone else does but reacts against situations that seem to be adventurous - like cryonic suspension. My arguments about unlimited suffering in a future `Hell' did have somewhat religious overtones. I myself do not believe in a God or and afterlife, but my argument was very similar to what I believe was Pascal's argument. He said that the most rational course would be to try to believe in God as, even if the likelihood of there being a God is small, the consequences of not believing in Him might be unlimited suffering in Hell. I suppose the reason I do not find this argument compelling is that I rate the chance of there being a God effectively zero. I do not mean mathematically zero but physically zero, as I believe the hypothesis of a God is not consistent with observed physical law. In the case of realistic bad scenarios occuring, either involving suspension or not, I cannot say that the probability is effectively zero. But I suppose Pascal's argument still isn't very compelling as the concept of unlimited suffering is not well defined. For example one might assume that it is impossible for finite beings to experience infinite suffering, their brains would simply keep `resetting to zero'! I suppose one area, related to the risk of suffering, that might be of concern to cryonicists is that of the right the individual to have control over his or her body. I personally believe that the right to euthanasia, for example, is a basic human right. I understand that a law upholding this right opens up the grave possibility of people taking their lives for impulsive reasons. I was thinking that one could have a system in which an applicant for voluntary euthanasia would be required to wait for a period, maybe about 6 months, during which time he or she would receive counselling from medical professionals. If at the end of that period the applicant still wanted euthansia it should be carried out by an organisation that was carefully controlled and monitored by the law courts. Of course, the enforced decision period could be reduced in the case of suffering caused by a rapidly deteriorating organic condition. I would like to know what other people think about this proposal. Perhaps the same law upholding the rights of the individual could also include the right to entrust the care of one's body to a third party after death. I have read some messages on the danger of autopsies on suspended patients. I must admit I still feel that autopsies might still be justified under certain circumstances, for example to provide evidence for the prosecution in the case of a murder. Perhaps suspended patients should still have rights but not quite to the same extent as animated people. At least those rights should include a clause that prevents coroners performing autopsies on the brains of suspended patients. -- John Eastmond Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1563