X-Message-Number: 1582
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: cryonics: #1566 - #1571
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:49:12 PST

Hi!

This is the issue of "immortality" again, with a brief look at neurosuspension.

As people who have paid attention to my opinions know, I think we should be
frank about immortality and also frank and open about neurosuspension ---   
including with the Dreaded Media. Why? Because fundamentally we ARE seeking
immortality and we DO engage in neuropreservation.

Let's look at Charles' substitute for what we should say when the "immortality"
question comes up: "Oh no, we're not trying for immortality, we just want to
live as long as we can". Just what is the real difference between these two
goals? Since there is no future time at which it is impossible to live on in
some form, living as long as possible (as an aim) looks awfully close to aiming
for immortality (unless, of course, we make some cosmological assumptions as
yet totally unproven). And again, just what will be the result if we aim for
immortality? Why, we will live as long as possible. 

It's not even true that immortality itself is necessarily impossible. An 
arithmetical exercise will show that IF we continually decrease the deathrate,
then some percentage of people will actually live forever (though I know no
way to find out whether or not I will be among their number). And if we 
decrease the deathrate fast enough, then that percentage increases. Certainly
in PRACTICAL terms, given the fact that we live in a universe which over almost
all its volume is hostile to us, we may not ATTAIN that immortality. But we

were talking about aims, not results. And we can hardly live as long as possible
without continually striving to live.

The issue of neuropreservation involves another attempt to paper over a real
difference. If many people are alienated from cryonics because of the fact that
we cut off people's heads, then we can hardly deal with that problem by trying
to ignore it. And if someone asks us about it, we can hardly refuse to answer:
how are they going to react to such a refusal? Decide that we're believable 
and trustworthy? Nope. We've simply got to state it, even before they ask,
and then come straight out and explain why and how we do neuropreservation.
After all, in rational terms, it's a LOT cheaper (the good side of it). It's
also actually SAFER (given the expense of storing a whole body). 

The aim of medicine SHOULD BE immortality, for everyone. And in pursuit of 
that goal, we should not limit ourselves only to methods acceptable to all.

D

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1582