X-Message-Number: 16154 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:57:08 +0000 () From: Louis Epstein <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #16144 - #16152 On 29 Apr 2001, CryoNet wrote: > Message #16144 > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:25:44 +0100 > From: Philip Rhoades <> > > > > Message #16135 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 23:51:56 -0400 > > > From: James Swayze <> > > > Subject: Shrub could be serious threat to our plans > > > > > > George W. has shot his mouth off and pissed off the one country it would > > > be most in our interest to befriend if only for the shear numbers they > > > outnumber us by. In fact all of Asia is upset. > > > > > > http://home-news.excite.com/news/ap/international/china-us-reaction > > > > > > China, Asia Upset on Bush Comments > > > > > > Updated: Thu, Apr 26 2:48 PM EDT By JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press Writer > > > BEIJING (AP) > > > > > > China accused President Bush on Thursday of taking the United States down > > > a "dangerous road" with pronouncements about American resolve to defend > > > Taiwan. Bush's comments that the United States can use military force in > > > Taiwan's defense sparked a wave of concern Thursday across Asia. Beijing > > > said Bush had further harmed China-U.S. ties, already strained by a spy > > > plane standoff and a U.S. offer of arms for Taiwan. (continued) > > > > > > Couldn't he wait at least for the spy plane incedent to die down? Idiot! > > > Put brain in gear before mouth Shrubbie! > > > >I am anything but a defender of the fool in the White House,but I believe > >that anything that is bad for the Chinese Communist Party is good for the > >human species,and anything that is good for the Chinese Communist Party is > >bad for the human species. > > > >A China that is controlled by a bloody-handed one-party dictatorship is > >one no one should oblige. > > > >I fail to see how appeasing the dictators is a particular priority for > >cryonics or immortalism...indeed,I favor withholding serious research > >efforts on longevity from China until the Communists have fallen(the > >verifiable centenarian density there is apparently not that great even > >though there have been extreme claims),and counsel patience. > > > >If it makes you feel any better,much of what Bush "approved" was > >empty talk...the diesel submarines he said could be sold,in fact > >can not be built. > > Consistency is what is needed to make sensible, honest decisions . . > > The island of Taiwan is part of China - the fact that the losing side in a > civil war retreated there makes no difference - nor does the fact that one > may not like the regime of the winning side. On the contrary.Since both governments survive,the war is not really over; and the bad guys having the great bulk of the territory does NOT excuse the "one China" nonsense.The fact is that "China" is a geographic expression,not a country,and the pretenses of governments of entitlement to rule the whole thing should not be given the respect they demand. At no time has the Peking government ever exercised or been entitled to exercise control over Taiwan,Kinmen,Matsu,or the other islands that have been under the ROC government's control since various dates between 1912 and 1945. (And calling Peking "Beijing" is an unseemly kowtow to the mainland's demands,before you ask.The European countries don't demand that we abandon traditional translations of their names,the Chinese Communists are entitled to no special privileges). > How would someone in Washington feel that if, after the southern US states > lost the US civil war, the losers retreated to one state and set up a new > nation there with the help of some superior outside military force, such > that the situation could not be changed? - I think it would not be popular > in the north . . but that is exactly what you are supporting in the > China/Taiwan situation. No.The North is the analogue of Taiwan...the government of the whole country against which the other part rebelled in an indefensible effort to perpetuate injustice.Of course the PRC would rather be seen as the analogue of the United States in the 1770s...but there,we eventually got a deal(the Treaty of Paris in 1783) that recognized the revolution. The Chinese Communists have not obtained recognition and forgiveness from the government against which they committed the crime of revolting, and it still exists.And is better for its people than theirs is. > The US goes to war at the drop of a hat when it considers its national > (commercial) interest is at stake eg oil in Iraq - but won't defend small > countries that should be defended eg East Timor against Indonesia because > RealPolitiks is involved. I am not a defender of heartless pragmatism. > In the Iraq situation it was obviously more > complicated than just one issue though - the US led Iraq to believe it was > alright to invade Kuwait so then they could behave like the cavalry coming > to the rescue . . not to mention the fact that they could test out a few > new weapons in a live situation, against a previously supported (but now > unpopular) ally . . > > Phil. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16145 > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 20:56:53 +0900 (JST) > From: "Matthew S. Malek" <> > Subject: Please spare me the "patriotic" rallying against China. > > > --Albert Einstein (quote taken from a "Nation" article > discussing how the "Time" magazine biography neglected > to mention that Einstein was a socialist) If you respect someone,you tend to politely omit mention of such flaws. (I remember the Olympic TV coverage with the announcer telling us that if we start telling our grandchildren about the runner Michael Johnson one day,we'll say "There was a man with shoes of gold..."... on the contrary,if I feel like telling future descendants about him, I'll flatter him by not mentioning that silly ego trip). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16146 > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 05:58:32 -0400 > From: James Swayze <> > Subject: The China vs Bush issue > References: <> > > What Bush said was stupid one for tipping our hand as to our resolve > (always keep the other side guessing) and two for not understanding the > Asian psyche. First of all Taiwan belongs to China. What right have we > to interfere? Would we appreciate China helping out Hawaii to secede? > Old Cold War mentalities got us involved when Taiwan rebelled in 1949. HUH??? "Taiwan rebelled in 1949"???? The government now on Taiwan is the one that the government controlling the mainland rebelled against in 1949.The government on Taiwan has controlled it since 1945,and certain other offshore islands since 1912. > I think our paradigm has shifted and if not it should. Nukes or threat > of might or old Cold War tricks won't bring China out of communism but > Coca-Cola will. Business with China will go further to coerce them to > democracy and free enterprise than bull headed antagonism ever will. > As the younger generations through global communication get a taste of > the western lifestyle and freedoms that free enterprise and democracy > allow old ways will die. Communism needn't be feared, it is doomed to > fail of it's own built in faults. It fell in countries in which we adopted a policy of containment, but when has it fallen in others? > By not allowing the individual to profit from their own efforts it > breeds apathy and stagnation. It was always doomed to fail. Communism > took hold of China and has held out so long only because it fit nicely > into the Tao based mentality of China which has defined the country for > thousands of years. Anyone that understands China will recognize that > adopting communism, for the Chinese was merely a matter of semantics. But that means it will be harder to discredit it. And cooperation won't help. > Xenophobic distrust also defines China and so does the Asian concept of > respect and loss of face. Bush acts like he knows nothing about Asia > period. Loss of face is extremely important and worth going to war over > in the Asian mentality. However, merely a subtle rearrangement of > semantics can alleviate the feeling of disrespect. The Chinese understand > more than anyone the need for both parties to save face and will always > be willing to accept subtleties of semantics and actions that afford > both respect and avoidance of escalation. What was done over the spy > plane, apologizing for the pilot's loss of life but not apologizing for > the plane being in what they perceive as their airspace (irritating > their xenophobic propensity for mistrust), was exactly this dance of > mutual face saving semantics. Then the idiot Bush comes back IMMEDIATELY > with a remark that invalidates that effort. This was colossal stupidity > and extreme ignorance of Asian ways. Saving face is not just an Asian thing. I believe that the Gulf War victory was virtually thrown away because Saddam Hussein was not humiliated.He still stands tall and pretends he won a great victory.Because he did not lose face,he has learned no lesson and neither have those around him. > This is not about facing down a bully. This is about getting widely > different cultures to understand and respect and trust each other. We > suffer from communism myopia. In other words we've been propagandized so > deeply into thinking it's straight from hell so much we fail to see the > true nature of it from the perception of the other side. Communism is > lousy, no doubt about it, but I hardly think China with it's xenophobia > and lingering Taoist nature is even in the least interested in > evangelizing America into becoming communist. Be real! A justly united China will see the revolution of 1949 as something to apologize for,not build patriotism around.It's just like the people in the South whining "it wasn't about slavery" and waving Confederate flags...wrong is still wrong no matter how many centuries it takes to admit.(The seceding states,in their official enactments about why they were seceding,made crystal clear that preserving slavery was at the core of their reasoning). > We should be promoting trade with China with the long view that it will > infect them with the democracy bug. Instead we've got diehard Cold > Warists lamenting the bad ole days and focusing on a pebble called > Taiwan. Let them have Taiwan. Who cares?! The big picture is the > mainland. More flies with honey right? If they want reunification,it can come on terms dictated by Taipei... otherwise let it wait.(And no,it won't be the ROC government riding into Peking in triumph and sending the whole Central Committee to jail.There will be a president and prime minister,the more powerful one being the one from the mainland and the one from Taiwan being one of his otherwise-mainland deputies,the less powerful one being the one from Taiwan and all his deputies coming from the mainland.That's the Chinese-style solution and it can be seen miles off.But while the we-are-the-only-legitimate-government-of-the-whole-country fever infects either side,it won't happen,and no one should let any other kind of unification happen). > Lastly, readers of cryonet should keep in mind that Bush opposes > technologies that we need to achieve our main goal. I believe that main > goal is immortality whether it be through cryonics or ANY other means. > For this reason, to me, Shrub and his ilk ARE the enemy plain and simple > regardless of which ideology anyone happens to identify with. Make no mistake that I am very anti-Bush. As efforts to banish mortality gain steam,I wonder what other persons and institutions will emerge as enemies. I recall that on a royalty newsgroup someone was mentioning Queen Elizabeth II's upcoming golden jubilee and the prospect of her beating Queen Victoria's regnal record(which would take until September 2015),and someone else responded with regard to some simplistic claim about anti-oxidants or some other "magic bullet" claim of life extension,that if the Queen goes "[whatever]- negative" she could last forever...and even if not,by Prince William's reign surely science will conquer human aging. And one of the Catholic-convert royalist regulars interjected simply, to the last comment,"What a horrible thought!" Just who thinks the end of aging horrible,and why? (Would the pharmaceutical industry suddenly back out of research in the face of a "Man in the White Suit"-like realization of "six months more work and that's the lot"?) Of course,the anti-animal-experimentation extremists are an identifiable danger. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16148 > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:41:12 -0700 > From: Lee Corbin <> > Subject: Re: Important question for the isomorphists > > James Swayze's response to the spectre of duplicates haunting the future > > > Would you have sex with your duplicate? > > exemplifies the anxieties created in the social body by our incipient > transformation to the posthuman, and the frightening (to many) preservation > and reassertion, not to say, apotheosis of the liberal humanist subject > freed from atavistic dependence upon the privileged and privileging present > gendered human form. The claim of the "posthuman" is similar to that of the "post-structuralist"...by sticking the "post" in front the advocates of the school of thought declare their claim of entitlement to survive those who disagree with them. While any human survives no one can be properly described as "posthuman". > Threats to spatial, temporal, and symbolic > continuity, unmediated by ritual rites of passage to the postcorporeal, > portend promiscuous intermingling and anxiety producing symbols of > fantastic and monstrous shapes, signifiers, and organic sensorial > transformations most alarming. The key questions, as James explicitly > brings to the foreplay, are the ways in which libido production will be > transferred to the arena of computer codes, and in which cybersexual > performance, either with duplicates or uploaded entities will take its > usual priveledged position in the transformed psyche, which will > necessitate radical protheses, of more than merely the cyborg kind, to > substitute for the explicitly amputated organs discarded during > neuro-suspensions and/or uploading. Computerized entities are not persons,and wisdom rejects any definition of person that includes them.You seem to have flip-flopped to the Yudkowskian position of deification-of-AI that you so recently argued against...where he was claiming that things we created should be treated as equal citizens. Neurosuspension,as I stated,I consider a bad joke...and if no new organic body can be created for the severed head,there is no point in attaching it to a substitute."Uploading" creates a simulation, not a real person.(As I stated,any accurate such simulation of me would subscribe to my views on its being incapable of being a real person because it was only an electronic simulation). > Louis Epstein pointed out that an original isn't the same as a duplicate > because an original is only an original, whereas a duplicate is a > duplicate, which demonstrates that the original is not a duplicate. A very > similar argument proves that a duplicate isn't the original either: because > if the duplicate WAS the original, then it wouldn't be a duplicate, or, in > other words, a duplicate cannot be the original because a duplicate *is > only* a duplicate, whereas the original is an original. I don't have time > right now to get into the slightly trickier question of when the original > is the original, which takes far more careful handling. While Louis's > simple argument had never occurred to me before, and certainly does cut > though a lot of the conceptual difficulties behind uploading, copies, and > transformations to the posthuman, it hardly damages the account rendered by > the information theory of duplicate identity (Ibid. pp. 1066-1131) As regards eroticism and duplication,though not related to cryonics but rather to paradox-free "shortcut" time travel... for some time as an adjunct of one of my fiction projects I've had a character who opens up access to parallel universes of every possible combination of events at every stage of history. Therefore,he can,in searching for persons to bring on board his organization,optimize to the point of fatigue women with the most desirable bodies,most open receptiveness to his taking them from the face of certain death,highest expertise in a skill he needs experts in...and when he settles on one he never gets just one of her.More usually half a dozen who room in pairs...women with identical histories up to the point of joining him,who are assigned ID numbers.They explore issues of being the same person and yet not the same person. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #16149 > Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:13:00 +0200 > From: > > -------- Original Message -------- > From: Declan McCullagh <> > Subject: FC: Scientology critic convicted after Usenet posts, picketing > To: > CC: > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,43420,00.html > > Scientology Critic Convicted > By Declan McCullagh () > 4:15 p.m. April 27, 2001 PDT > > WASHINGTON -- A California jury has convicted Keith Henson, a > prominent critic of Scientology, of terrorizing the group through > Usenet posts and by picketing one of its offices. > > Henson, a computer engineer who has been involved in prior legal > skirmishes with Scientology, was found guilty on Thursday of > interfering with Scientologists' civil rights and now faces a prison > sentence of up to one year and a fine of up to $5,000. > > The charges revolved around posts Henson made in the > alt.religion.scientology newsgroup about targeting a nuclear missile > at Scientologists, and Henson's picketing of the group's Golden Era > Productions in Riverside, California. > > [...] Let's hope the Scientologists are never successful in shutting down http://www.xenu.net/ (Andreas Heldal-Lund's site). Scientology is a sad story...a scam created as a scam, http://www.xenu.net/ turned over to true-believing marks who think it's for real, http://www.xenu.net/ continuing on autopilot to dupe whoever can get duped, http://www.xenu.net/ with the truth forever obscured, http://www.xenu.net/ and friends in high places short-circuiting needed prosecutions http://www.xenu.net/ and according it undeserved respect. http://www.xenu.net/ (subliminals?Who,me?) To me,the notions of copyright and scripture should be seen as mutually exclusive. God's intellectual property is not for organizations of men to withhold. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16154