X-Message-Number: 22050
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:10:21 +0200
Subject: Re: Libertarians and cryonics 
From: David Stodolsky <>

On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 11:00  AM, Steve Bridge wrote:

>
> Perhaps the most basic conflict in human nature is the self vs. the 
> tribe

If we speak on the evolutionary level, then we also have to acknowledge 
the conflicting survival drives between the self vs. the cell 
(selfish-gene type theories). Here it is more obvious that it is the 
balance of conflict and cooperation that is crucial. That is, one can 
have both high levels of conflict and high levels of cooperation.

Evolutionary tendencies can play a minor role in social organization. I 
take this analysis to be focused primarily on the dynamics of social 
interaction, where cultural evolution is the dominant element.



>  Sometimes being a member of a particular tribe would shorten the
> lives of its members, but totally independent people were unlikely to 
> meet
> and attract mates.

Totally independent is not a possible state from a social psychological 
standpoint.


>
> As the concept of individuality grew, the conflicts within families and
> tribes no doubt grew also.

There is no reason that individual identity and group identity can not 
grow simultaneously. For example, in a negotiation you might get to 
like someone on the other side as an individual, but at the same time 
oppose them strongly for their group position.



>  This
> should be no surprise because only people with that mindset are likely 
> to be
> early adopters of new ideas like this, which places such importance on 
> the value
> of individual lives.

Given that the late Soviet Union was first into Space and educated the 
only PhD cryobiologist working for a cryonics organization, there is 
room for surprise.



> The
> result is that, while cryonics organizations may be largely made of 
> people who
> are more or less "libertarian" in personal nature, cryonics 
> organizations
> themselves are not libertarian or even democratic.

The lack of democracy is a threat. More democratic organization could 
probably have prevented the one cryonics 'meltdown' from occurring.



> I leave it to your imaginations to determine what
> changes might have been made in Alcor if this group had suddenly been 
> able to elect
> all of their own leaders to Alcor's Board of Directors; but it 
> certainly
> convinced me that Alcor could be not a democracy.

There are other methods to ensure against 'takeovers' and typically 
democratic organizations are much more resistant to such maneuvers then 
others.


>
> Back to the "libertarians vs. socialists" debate: Personally, I 
> believe that
> no "pure" form of political philosophy is likely to be successful with 
> any
> group much larger than 100 people, because it is too hard to agree on 
> one's
> principles and rules with larger groups. And "agreement" is what holds 
> such a group
> together. Larger groups stay together partly through various forms of
> coercion -- legal, social pressure, or outright force -- or they split 
> into new
> groups.

Not obvious. We are confusing political organization and economic 
organization.


>
> I think pure libertarianism will not work in large groups because we 
> are too
> dependent on being part of a tribe

It will not work at all, because if fails to acknowledge the group as a 
reality.

http://secureid.org:8100/Lists/Immortal/Message/14.html



>  -- and communism and other extreme forms of
> socialism won't work because we have developed too much individuality.

More confusing of political organization and economic organization.


>
> We concede enough authority to the
> different tribes around us to make sure things get done and that we 
> feel as
> safe and comfortable as possible, while having certain borders of 
> personal
> freedom that we are unwilling to have the tribal leaders cross.

A more accurate model is that people choose which leaders to follow.


>
> Part of the reasons we do cryonics publicity is to gain new members. 
> But a
> lot of it is to make sure that WE committed cryonicists are the ones 
> defining the
>  terms, not the swindlers or nutcases that have often been called
> "cryonicists" and not the "ethicists", "journalists" or sportswriters 
> (of all people) who
> feel they must define us in terms they can deal with.

That 'WE' means a group. We maximize our survival chances by having a 
strong group composed of strong individuals.

To avoid being undermined as a movement, we must construct a group 
identity which includes all reputable organizations. The infighting 
within and between cryonics organizations is counter to this objective.

It is not obvious that the term 'cryonics' is worth defending, since it 
is only one approach to immortality. We would certainly prefer not to 
need suspension, therefore a term more inclusive of all technical 
approaches to life extension might be better.


dss

>
David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22050