X-Message-Number: 1856
Date: 01 Mar 93 16:52:16 EST
From: Clarissa Wells <>
Subject: CRYONICS Desire to Survive

To: 
 
 
March 1, 1993
 
 
This may be my last letter for a while, because I have reached a conclusion 
about the cryonics community, which makes it seem less attractive to me now. 
However, I would like to know if other people can show me that my conclusion 
is wrong. 
 
After spending a lot of time reading various letters (especially in the 
Cryonet archives from last year), I think some people here have a great 
respect, maybe even reverence, for life in general. These people are driven by 
a fine principle: death is unjust, and we should work to eliminate it--not 
just for ourselves but for EVERYONE, because it is the right thing to do. 
 
On the other hand, I sense there are some people whose concerns are narrower. 
They are concerned with life and death AS IT AFFECTS THEM. They are so 
determined to survive, they may feel as if they are fighting for their lives. 
Under these circumstances, naturally enough, they can be a little unscrupulous 
trying to get what they want. 
 
My conclusion is now obvious. The people who are concerned with preserving ALL 
life as their number-one priority have a strong sense of justice, and they may 
even sacrifice their own wellbeing in order to achieve the greater good. But 
the people who just worry about themselves have less time for ethics. They may 
cooperate with others, but only when it serves their purpose, as in a genuine 
emergency. The rest of the time, they are not very trustworthy. 
 
I realize that most people in the cryonics movement may be driven by a mixture 
of the two motives. However, the cold pragmatism of some of the letters I have 
read tells me that the drive for personal survival is very dominant in some 
cases. I find this scary, because anyone who is fighting for his life is going 
sacrifice other people, if necessary. 
 
My thoughts about this began when I tried to imagine exactly why someone would 
want to consign another person to a greater chance of oblivion, by shutting 
him out of a cryonics organization. As Brian Wowk has stated rather clearly, 
and as Keith Henson has admitted, an exiled person can do just as much damage 
as a member. In fact, he may develop a grudge and do even MORE damage as a 
result. But the desire to shut out certain people is stronger than this calm 
logic. It's a very primal thing, like something out of the Old Testament. It 
seems to say, "You threatened my life, so you must be cast out." 
 
I am not just picking on one person (Mr. Henson) here. He just happened to be 
the one who proposed something which troubled me. There are other people, such 
as Michael Riskin and perhaps Steve Jackson, who speak in the same terms, as 
if personal survival is all that really matters. 
 
Yes, we all want to live! But sociobiology and game theory have both reached 
the same conclusion: within a species, enlightened self-interest is usually 
more successful, in the long term, than ruthless self-interest. In other 
words, some cooperative behavior is necessary. Otherwise, social groups 
fragment into mutual distrust, and the species suffers.  
 
I can rephrase this in human terms. An institution that abides by ethical 
principles and cares for people's needs will be more welcoming, more benign, 
AND ULTIMATELY MORE SUCCESSFUL, than one where the people in charge just do 
whatever it takes to save themselves.  
 
Being ruthless can certainly work in the short term. But a cryonics group has 
to be around for the long term. Therefore, the people who will do whatever it 
takes to save themselves are an enemy to their movement, and also to 
themselves, so long as they lack sincere concern for the group as a whole. 
                               
                              Yours sincerely
                              Clarissa Wells 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1856