X-Message-Number: 22933 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:59:44 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Future Revivals Randy Wicker, #22922, and my replies: >Cloning a couple later-born twins would be "reanimation" enough for me. Most of us cryonicists would not consider that survival, not _our_ survival. The twins, who would grow from infancy, would have different memories and personality and not be us. We want to survive ourselves, much as we wake up each morning after sleep. It wouldn't do for someone else, even a twin who still wasn't us, to be the one who wakes up in our place. >One thing which puzzles me about those who dream of hundreds, thousands, >millions cryogenically preserved. >Why do they assume anyone would be interested in reviving them. Why have any people in the first place, I am led to ask, beyond a small circle of friends? I discuss some reasons why in my book, _Forever for All_. Basically, others can benefit oneself, in a mutual exchange in which the benefits for each individual are greater than that person would enjoy alone. But millions? Well, I think in the future there will be more communication between more and more people and ultimately, yes, each person will sense some benefit from each other person, even many millions of people, that would not happen with only a few people. This is happening somewhat already with the Internet. > Perhaps a few special people would >appeal across the ages. What I think many non-cryonicists don't take into account is that in the future we will all probably become far more "special" than any great genius or other revered virtuoso of the past. >However, if you could go out into a country graveyard (even Arlington >Cemetery) and bring back all those buried there, would you want to do it? Possibly it would have to be spaced over time, to avoid logistics problems, but it would be better to do it if you could, than not to do it. Yes, I would want to do it. > What about their need for housing, food and jobs? Jobs. Who needs a job? In the future, as a matter of principle, we should strive for a world with sufficient automation that people who observe a few simple rules could get by without having to earn a living. Then everybody should _work their guts out_, not for the motive of feeding their face, but to find meaning on higher levels, interact with others, further the whole cause of immortalization, develop a mind sharper than Einstein's, sensibilities greater than Buddha's, and so on and on. Actually, the work you did would "feed your face" too but that would be a minor part of it, very minor. I imagine that one of the attributes of future life is that I will become more than human, and what I do will be both fascinating and deeply satisfying, to the point I will do it voluntarily, without "pay." (Don't forget we should have control over the mechanism of our basic reactions to different activities. So you could, if you wanted, make digging a ditch feel absolutely wonderful, though I imagine most of us will so arrange it that other things will occupy center stage.) At the same time the work I do will be important for furthering the cause of the immortal society I hope to be part of, which in turn will be looking out for each individual. In any case the society of the future is not simply going to be ours of today plus a little window dressing. > Don't you think a social debate about reviving so many of the dead would > lead to a social debate in which many would argue it was more important > to take care "of our own", those living now, instead of burdening an > overpopulated with revived "additional people"? I'm sure that they would argue this--and I would disagree with them. Their thinking is rooted in the idea that we humans and our societies and institutions must fundamentally stay what they are, if they don't just degrade or disappear entirely. I beg to differ. I think you could, in a reasonable way, have it both ways--revivals plus care for the already-living--at least if you take into account options for progress beyond the human level (shedding mortality would just be a beginning). >Actually, should I succeed in being cloned, my later-born twins would >quite possibly become ardent proponents of my revival. I am an ardent proponent of this already--and I don't even know you (or share your genes). I hope you get signed up. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22933