X-Message-Number: 16408
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 16:26:56 +0000 ()
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Strehler;Modification;Religion;Death

I note that Dr. Coles has now posted an obituary of Prof.
Strehler at http://grg.org/charter/BLStrehler.htm
(includes a link to Strehler's homepage at fihg.org).

A shame he didn't live to see the mortality of mortality

On 2 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> ---------------------------------------------------
> Message #16400 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:13:24 -0400
> From: Thomas Donaldson <>
> Subject: CryoNet #16394 - #16399
> If we are going to modify ourselves then the issue of just how becomes
> prominent. A little thought suggests to me that (other than changes
> to live in a quite different enviroment, such as the planet Jupiter
> or an asteroid) our physical shape may not change much. However the
> problem of accessing more and more memory may cause some brain changes;
> whether those changes require changes of materials isn't clear.
> But clearly we won't want to carry ALL our memories around with us
> ALL THE TIME. So we might choose to have many different memories,
> to be used when we need them. This is likely to need some changes 
> in our brain anatomy, though many brain features would remain the
> same and we most certainly do not want to turn ourselves into 
> computers in the present sense of the word "computer". 

I am a data-packrat...it's traumatic enough if I lose an email,
or a book...I don't want to think of the conniptions I'd have
about facts deliberately excised from my brain.And I don't like
the idea of changed anatomy.

I might be interested in ways a brain can increase capacity,
but not in the form of anything removable.
> 4 arms can be useful in some situations, but it can also become
> a burden in others. We have so far dealt that that problem by 
> TOOLS: detachable parts which give us those features when we want
> them and allow us to put them aside when we DON'T want them.
> I see no reason why such a system cannot continue, and remain 
> superior to actual physical modifications. Yes, our tools might
> connect more with our brains, but they will remain tools. It's
> not even clear that we'll need more brain connections than those
> given us already by our hands. 

Very true...I might not mind external brain-reading devices if
they were secure,but not interested in any connection that
involved surgery.(The science-fiction image of someone whose
brain has a plug-connection is something I never want to be
in real life!)

(With regard to security...is everyone here aware of the British
legislation requiring people to hand over encryption keys when
the government requests,and forbidding them from revealing that
they have done so,both on pain of prison?)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #16401 From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> Subject: Re: CI compared to Religion
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:14:59 +0100
> > Message #16371 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:37:03 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Charles Platt <>
> > > Whereas I can't agree with Charles Platt's comparison, I wonder whether
> > > anyone has actually costed membership of a church - any church.
> >
> > While some require a fixed percentage of your income (a business model
> > that cryonics organisations should try to copy, in my opinion), most
> > require voluntary donations.
> I suspect any cryonics organisation requiring members to file statements
> of assets or income and pay a percentage wouldn't get many members.

With regard to the occasionally suggested foundation of
a cryonics-oriented religion,I suppose this inhibition
would be overcome for any who didn't mind that concept to
begin with.

I do think,however,that such a religion,with a creed of
defying death and decay at all costs and forbidding/condemning
the slightest lapse in the preservation of one's body,
would have to be firmly hostile to the "right to die" notion
to have a consistent moral code.(And I certainly couldn't see
joining it if it weren't).

A religiously based cryonics organization/cryonically-based
religion would see suspension facilities as the proper
alternative to cemeteries,much as Hindus use cremation pyres
and Zoroastrians leave bodies to decay in the open.By
belonging to a religion and being classed with cemeteries
(even though the eternal hope of revival was part of the
religion) they would presumably be tax-exempt.For
appearance's sake the particular units might perhaps best
be underground,which might make sense from an insulation

Meanwhile,Imogene Coca has joined the dead.

When will we the living be...as in the title of Pohl's book...
"outnumbering the dead"?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16408