X-Message-Number: 16468
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:54:00 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #16444 - #16455

>Message #16444
>Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:25:07 -0400
>From: Deathist Lurker Girl <>
>Subject: On being taken seriously...
>...I am in favor of
>humanity/transhumanity/whatever-each-person's-own-term-is finding a way to
>be happily and productively immortal.  However, for personal reasons of my
>own, *I* do not choose to participate in this future *myself*

I think many of us (self included) would call you a sympathizer but not an 
immortalist--you don't want immortality yourself--and that's a very 
important consideration.

>So that means I can't be taken seriously?

Depends on circumstances. I remember some years ago, someone was in the 
position of trying to convince others to sign up with a cryonics 
organization, yet was not signed up himself (either with that or any other 
group). For me that's a turnoff. It also seems bizarre and unnatural that 
someone would want to be involved with us who are trying to survive, yet 
would not want to survive themselves. Imagine a situation on a sinking 
ship, where someone is very helpful getting the passengers into lifeboats 
but is not interested getting in one herself. One thing about it is that 
some of us really don't like the fact that people are dying and that they 
have value that is being senselessly lost. In principle each person is 
worth saving, yet those who don't want to see the future are, in effect, 
asking us to accept the position that *they* aren't worth saving. If 
someone broadcasts that as a message, yet is still interested in working 
with us and being accepted into our group, well--it's hard. I think you can 
see how this situation is different from that with a group like gays or 
lesbians. There you are talking about personal preferences, but here it's a 
basic sense of self worth--or lack.

To James Swayze: it's an outrage that you want to be signed up but can't be 
now because of the situation you describe. I do "wanna help"--unfortunately 
I don't have much wherewithal (yet)--trying though. I think you need a jump 
start, so you can get unhooked from government support. You're bright 
enough by appearances that you ought to be able to make a reasonable living 
and have enough to spare for things like cryonics arrangements. I hope 
others on this list take note--what can we do to help this person?

>Message #16449
>Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:02:31 +0000 ()
>From: Louis Epstein <>
>Subject: Replies to CryoNet #16433 - #16442,Bremont dead
>On 6 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote:
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message #16433 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:14:32 -0700
> > From: Kennita Watson <>
> > Subject: Re: "Choosing death"
> >
> > >From discussion with Louis Epstein:
> >
> > > If the deliberate purpose of an action or inaction is
> > > to die,the action or inaction can not be rationally condoned.
> > > ...
> > > People who deliberately seek death deserve only frustration.
> > >
> > > I believe in eradicating death, not treating it as a legitimate
> > > goal of a thinking person.
> > >
> > > We need fanatical,not conditional, opposition to death.
> > >
> > This entire discussion seems to me to be being conducted on the basis of
> > a false premise -- that those who are cryopreserved are "choosing to die".
> > Au contraire!  Such people are condemned to die, by age, injury, or
> > disease, and are choosing cryopreservation as their only current chance
> > to live.
>The issue is not choosing cryopreservation.
>The issue is ACCELERATING cryopreservation
>when one is still capable of postponing it.
>Remember...the goal of cryonics is not getting
>INTO cryopreservation but getting OUT of it.

You really misunderstand here. All you're trying to do is get to the 
future, say 100 years from now, with your mind and memories intact. Which 
course of action has the best chance of accomplishing that, letting 
Alzheimer's disease take its toll, then what's left of you being frozen, or 
getting cryopreserved early in the course of the illness, when you're still 
mentally intact? There is a fair amount of evidence, though no conclusive 
proof yet, that good cryopreservation does preserve identity-critical 
structures that would be lost in such a case as this, if the disease runs 
its course. With these structures intact, there is further evidence that 
the mind can be restored to function someday, when technology has advanced. 
So can you see how it's a rational choice to choose cryopreservation when 
you're still in good shape, before a disease robs you of your identity?

>No,in the case of those who jump the gun,
>they're gambling that if they hurry
>to the electric chair ahead of schedule,
>they have a better chance that the juice
>won't fry them completely.

And they could well be right, in this special circumstance. They certainly 
should have the right to choose.

> > I venture to assert that people with brain cancer or other terminal
> > ailments try everything possible to halt/reverse it, and only when
> > their attempts fail do they consider cryopreservation.
>But by seeking death by dehydration,etc.,
>they are attempting to make sure that
>their attempts fail.

Not at all.

> > If the odds of dying by doing nothing are greater than the odds of
> > dying by being cryosuspended, then cryosuspension is the rational choice.
>But those who seek to get cryosuspended before
>they have to are not just choosing to be
>cryosuspended,they are choosing to forego a
>portion of their otherwise-guaranteed conscious

Only a tiny portion, in return for the chance of a much greater amount of 
consciousness. Like being willing to bet a dollar on something you think 
will pay off in millions, and having some evidence to back you up. If 
you're down to your last dollar, with no significant prospect of earning 
more, is this such an irrational choice?

>...I consider the existence of an Infinitely
>First Cause of existence necessary for there to
>be any existence...
>... I do not believe
>in divinely-ordained churches or scriptures.
>I just consider that there has to be a reason
>for That-Which-Is,that this reason is by definition
>"God",and that "it just is" is no explanation,but
>a refusal to explain.(The correct answer to "Why?"
>is "God",not "because!").
>(Pay close attention to that word "Infinitely"
>above...it completely negates the tired old
>then-who-created-God riposte).
Well, someone could raise the issue of whether any cause could really be 
"first." But to me the existence of a First Cause does not carry the 
necessary implication that the First Cause is a sentient being. To me the 
multiverse, the totality of all universes, makes the best candidate for a 
First Cause. Everything comes from it and it is always there. Yet as a 
whole it is also mindless, as far as we know. You could call this God, 
which would make you a pantheist of sorts, but to me it's the wrong choice 
of terminology. Traditionally God was held to be a personal being with 
consciousness and ability to communicate and understand. I don't think that 
kind of being exists, which is why I consider myself an atheist, though 
"with a concept of divinity" because I think "we are becoming God." This in 
turn is happening through our efforts to become immortal and bring about 
the highest happiness all around. Some may protest that we are hardly doing 
all that (though a few like cryonicists are making a start by trying to 
become immortal) but I see our constructive efforts gaining momentum as 
time passes and more scientific progress is made. Naturally, I hope that 
good will prevail in all this, but it's all up to us.

> >
> > Message #16440 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:09:17 -0700
> > From: Mike Perry <>
> > Subject: Re: Cryonets #16417, 16425, 16428
> >
> > At 09:00 AM 6/5/2001 +0000, you wrote:
> > >From: Eivind Berge <>
> > >
> > >Mike Perry wrote:
> > >
> > > > Personally, I live a celibate lifestyle and sex is not so important.
> > > > But I support the right to choose here as elsewhere.
> > >
> > >But if everybody chooses to transcend as you envision, my right to choose
> > >being a normal man with a normal sex life is meaningless.
> >
> > Well, I suppose you could create a partner for yourself; that ought to be
> > possible, though you might have to wait till space is available or move 
> off
> > planet...
>Are you anticipating a future of
>great overcrowding,then?

No, but I foresee restrictions on the creation of new sentient life forms, 
to forestall possible overcrowding. (Maybe I shouldn't have inserted that 
thought here; it seems to have confused several readers.)

>(Of course,this can be a consequence
>of overindulging in sex...)

True enough, though in the future sex may be decoupled from reproduction.

>...> >...
> > > > The Society for Venturism, which endorses and promotes cryonics,
> > > > is legally recognized as a religious organization in the U.S.
> > >
> > >I've heard of it,hence my statement that I wasn't
> > >a Venturist in my first Cryonet posting.
> > >
> > > > (see the website http://www.venturist.org, especially "About Us").
> > >
> > >In any event,it seems to incline toward atheism,
> > >which I consider a ridiculous position.
> >
> > You have the right to your opinions. The Venturist organization is not
> > officially atheistic but its members generally are. In my book I develop
> > my own views which amount to "atheism with a concept of divinity"--not
> > the usual variety of atheism but not professing belief in a sentient God
> > either (and not agnostic either).
>I have sometimes described myself as
>a "strongly theistic secular humanist",
>and others as a "plain-vanilla theist".
>I don't consider God particularly "personal"
>but consider the existence of the Infinitely
>First Cause (aka God) to be the necessary
>precondition for the existence of anything
>at all.

See my remarks above. To me it seems feasible to define a First Cause, but 
again, I don't see that as a sentient being.

>A church that is broad enough to permit
>its members to be atheist is broad to the
>point of theological uselessness.

Well, there are different varieties of atheism. An atheist immortalist who 
believes in a First Cause (not a being however) and in the power of good to 
prevail through universal love and rational effort is a possibility. I 
consider myself such a person, and I don't think this position is a 
"useless" one. In general, the people in the Venturist movement are like 
this, that is, believing (or hoping) in the power of good to prevail 
through rational efforts, and in the possibility and desirability of 
personal immortality.

>...> Adherents can't just believe whatever they like, though a rigid list of
> > dogmas is not enforced.
>I said "whatever ELSE they like",meaning
>that certain core beliefs about cryonics
>were all that united the Venturists.

There's more than just that. Cryonics is a means to an end. Venturists 
believe they ought to be immortal, and ought to form a harmonious 
community, to work for what is good and right, forever. Quite a lot, really.

>...> > > Generally the idea of associating cryonics with cemeteries has 
> > > > to be a "can of worms" (more literally and in more ways than I care
> > > > to think) and has been avoided since the days of Chatsworth.
> > >
> > >What has seriously been done with it?I think the concept of faith-based
> > >obligation to keep bodies from decaying at all costs is something that
> > >could have its uses.Of course,it's the opposite of what some religions
> > >teach...but there's always the Egyptian precedent to improve upon.
> >
> > Cryonic Interment, Inc. kept frozen bodies in a crypt in a cemetery for
> > awhile. They were "out of sight, out of mind" and ultimately all were
> > thawed and lost, with much legal recrimination. But associating ourselves
> > with cemeteries would bring us under cemetery rules and regulations, which
> > weren't intended to apply to bodies or parts stored in liquid nitrogen.
>Well,the commercial-cemetery model
>is not exactly the same as the
>churchyard-cemetery model,and it
>sounds like Cryonic Interment didn't
>even have their own land.But what
>are the main problems with the

The regulations pertain to how "dead bodies" are stored, such as in graves, 
in mausoleums, etc., and how they are prepared, usually by embalming. (Or 
you can go the cremation route.) Ours are not embalmed, are stored above 
ground, and are not hermetically sealed, which already breaks the rules. I 
don't have all these rules at my fingertips, and can look into this further 
if you want, but you can see how there would be problems.

>Just how many people have been
>thawed and lost over the years,
>from various failed organizations?
>What was the most recent instance?

About 20 altogether were lost, most in the early years, up to the mid-70s. 
There have been a very few more recent cases, but not from failure of the 
organization. In 1994 a lady was thawed because she had written a will 
saying she didn't want to be frozen, though her husband had her frozen 
anyway. That is the most recent case I know of, other than a private case, 
very poorly done, that was very likely thawed but I don't know for sure.

>Message #16451
>Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:17:26 -0400
>From: James Swayze <>
>Subject: All in the brain? Hmmm what about...
>References: <>
>Mike Perry wrote:
> > >Mike Perry wrote:
> > >
> > > > Personally, I live a celibate lifestyle and sex is not so 
> important.  But I
> > > > support the right to choose here as elsewhere.
> > >
> > >But if everybody chooses to transcend as you envision, my right to choose
> > >being a normal man with a normal sex life is meaningless.
> >
> > Well, I suppose you could create a partner for yourself; that ought to be
> > possible, though you might have to wait till space is available or move off
> > planet...
>Huh? Mike, dear friend, please elaborate what you mean here. Space 
>available? Where? Move off planet to
>be able to have a sex partner? I'm confused.

Sorry, see my remark above.

> > >Poor St. Benny, look at all the fun he and his ilk missed out on. I am
> > >thoroughly opposed to celibate lifestyles. Mike, I love you buddy, but
> > >please, GET LAID! ;)
> >
> > Well, James, I appreciate your sentiments, and also I do feel for you in
> > your own immense frustration and general state of being different than
> > you'd like to be, but you have to realize, I just don't see it the way you
> > and most others do.
>Are you saying that should you be reanimated one future day with a new and 
>body, vigorous, youthful,
>healthy, fertile

why fertile?

>  and for sake of argument genetically enhanced for beauty and 
> attractiveness (just
>stacking the deck here for argument sake-not suggesting it would be 
>necessary) and then along comes a
>sweet looking extropian gal that says she's just gotta have you--you will 
>turn her down? And let's add
>to this scenario that uploading is not yet an option.

I don't feel a *need* for the attentions you are referring to, so why 
should I have such a need in the future?

> > Also, though it may be nit-picking, I think the orgasm
> > is really felt in the brain, and the fact that you haven't been feeling it
> > is due to lack of stimulation in the right areas rather than the nerve
> > locus itself being somewhere else. (Somebody more knowledgeable about the
> > brain may wish to comment.)
>I still disagree for the following reason and I too welcome some more 
>expert advice. What about night
>emissions? Ok , the proverbial "Wet dream". External stimulus needed or 
>all in the mind? I wish like
>hell it was as simple as all in the mind. I really really do!

I will guess that natural selection is working against you here. If it were 
"too easy" it would detract from your reproductive fitness--under more 
ordinary circumstances. But the places that would create the feeling could 
still be there, just not being stimulated. I won't rule out that these too, 
even if in your brain, disappeared as a consequence of the nerve 
damage--though I haven't heard of such a thing. Again I hope someone more 
knowledgeable will comment.

>Louis said,
> > >(The things that really matter matter because
> > >they can never change.Ultimate truth exists
> > >completely independent of belief in it.I have
> > >no appreciation for subjectivism).
>Then Mike said,
> > I am not a relativist either.
> >
>For clarification, what's a relativist? Someone that believes the Theory 
>Of Relativity? That doesn't
>seem to be the topic here.

I was not referring to relativity theory, but to the philosophical position 
that truth and goodness are absolutes in some sense, not "relative" to a 
particular situation hence mutable and overall largely meaningless.

>Message #16452
>From: "john grigg" <>
>Subject: horny, lonelyheart cryonicists...
>Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 01:21:29
>I respect Mike Perry's lifestyle choice of celibacy but hope in time he can
>find the right person.

I hope someday we can all form a harmonious community of happy immortals. I 
don't see myself focusing too much on just one person.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16468