X-Message-Number: 26537 From: "David Pizer" <> References: <> Subject: Replies Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:19:21 -0700 REPLY TO ROBERT ETTINGER ROBERT SAID : First, just very briefly to repeat what I see as Dave Pizer's basic mistake--namely, to assume that the outsiders will perceive what he says. They will mostly not--they will perceive what they think he said or what they fear he implied. Surely Dave can no longer doubt this, since he has already accused most cryonetters of misinterpreting his proposal. DAVID: I don't doubt that if I introduced this idea without an introduction and disclaimers (as I did on Cryonet) that there would be an emotional response where people would not realize the good intentions and would not read and understand what I was really trying to do. The Cryonet response has really opened my eyes on how important that opening presentation should be. ROBERT: Anyway, Dave has said he is mostly interested in PR. My suggestion is the old one of a "science court"--a formal debate with top cryobiologists (and possibly bioethicists) as opponents. We can offer them expenses, first class accomodations, and an honorarium if they meet at the time and place we suggest for a session of at least a few hours, press invited. The honorarium could be substantial--maybe $5,000 each for 4 people. The "jury" could be general or science journalists, or possibly others. Possibility of considerable press and public interest, and no appreciable downside. Venue either Detroit or Scottsdale. DAVID: I LIKED THIS IDEA WHEN YOU FIRST SUGGESTED IT A LONG TIME AGO. I WOULD SUPPORT IT IF IT WAS A JOINT EFFORT CO-SPONSORED BY ALCOR AND C.I. OF COURSE THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I HAVE PROPOSED AND ALCOR AND C.I. WOULD WANT TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM ME, IF I WERE TO PROCEED (which I am not thinking of doing at this point). If Alcor and CI got together and did something like this, I would pledge $500 towards the cost of this. David Reply to Eivind Berge BERGE Subject: A couple of points for Mr. Pizer, with no name-calling this time Jesus says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you..." (John 15:16). I am talking about predestination, and submit that at least as far as the doctrine of election goes, Pizer's logic is flawed because any guarantee on the part of churches is a moot point. Whether one joins the church and follows their instructions will have no bearing on whether one's soul is saved. PIZER: I am not trying to keep people from joining the church. I hope their soul is saved. I just want the church to not GUARANTEE these things, so that people will consider BOTH the religions options and the technology options. By the way, didn't He also say (in Mathew) for his followers, to heal the sick and raise the dead? BERGE Secondly, your analogy of dinner--that it's unreasonable to stop to get food on the way home from work because there will be dinner ready when you get home--seems weak to me. PIZER: yes, analogy is one of the weaker forms of argumentation. Remember I have two arguments that we are debating here. My First argument - that religions are making a mistake by presenting their beliefs as absolutes - is a deductive one and I believe it is valid and sound. If it is then it cannot be wrong. My second arguments - what we should do about this wrong identified in the first argument- do not intend to be deductive, they are inductive and therefore just good reasons why we should do this or that. These second arguments are much weaker in their logical forms. So what I am saying is that we know that it is mistake they way religions are guaranteeing eternal Heavenly life based on what is only knowable at present, but we don't know as confidently about what we should do about this mistake - if anything. We don't even know if doing something might make things worse. Response to Beth Bailey BETH SAID: My reasoning: I believe your ultimate goal is to make cryonics socially acceptable and encourage millions of people to sign up. This is highly commendable and worthy of all the positive efforts cryonicists can apply to make this a reality. I also agree with you that religion preaches and teaches that dying is positive. I only disagree with you on one thing, and that is your proposed methodology of using a lawsuit to make your point. This is where I believe you have "nothing to gain," because when people of faith are challenged by science / modernity, they respond first, by praying to their deity of choice more fervently, and when that doesn't achieve the desired effect, they organize and attack; evolution, family planning, stem cell research, working mothers, gay rights, etc. Some religious people believe their internal thoughts are the "voice of God." Therefore, they know what God wants for them and for you. If you file a lawsuit that is critical of the religious belief system they hold dear, the religious belief system that gives comfort, security and meaning to their lives, they will attack you en masse. The attack might be personal, just directed at David Pizer, but the attack might also be directed against cryonics as a whole. While Alcor and CI can put people in biostasis, no one has been revived. For this reason, anyone with an agenda can disparage (junk science, selfish people, afraid of death...) and try to legislate against cryonics. PIZER............ You pretty well summed it up. There is a problem. Religions are making (probably honest) a mistake. What should we do to try to help the people who are being hurt by this mistake? That's why I initiated this discussion, to see if we can and should do anything. BETH My response: While both you and I believe they are making a horrible mistake that will consign them to oblivion, most people do not have the information that would enable them to understand why their decision could be a mistake, or the motivation to correct it. DAVID: And, I believe that as long as most people are guaranteed eternal life in Heaven they will believe they don't need to look elsewhere for life-extending technologies. That's the problem. BETH My response: The internet gives people a medium where they can express their opinions in an anonymous format. This makes people feel free to rant. I myself enjoy a good rant every now and again. I also share the fear of other Cryonet readers and responders that a lawsuit, even one filed with the best of intentions might cause a backlash against cryonics. This could come in the form of an injunction that forces Alcor and CI to stop performing suspensions, while legislation is drafted to put the companies out of business. PIZER: Me too. I like a good rant, I also like a good developed philosophical argument that might appear like a rant to some people, that's ok. I also fear what "their" reaction might be to a lawsuit. But I also think we should weigh the potential benefits that this might bring. It makes me sad when we sit by helplessly doing very little. I also feel we need to do something dramatic. Sure, we will win out in the end, say, in a couple hundred years. But think of all the dead-forever people there will be in the meantime that we might have helped. BETH " It breaks my heart that in the year 2005 humans remain as superstitious and eager to kill each other as when our ancestors first came down from the trees. I sometimes think that humans are still barbarians with only a very thin veneer of civilization. I have hope for humanity, though, when I find people such as David Pizer who believe in the concept of human immortality and the science that it will take to get us there. I simply don't want any cryonics advocate to scare off potential members by initiating an action that can be perceived as threatening by "regular people." For many people, religion defines their identity on such a basic, intrinsic level that if you challenge their beliefs, they go absolutely nuts. PIZER: That's pretty much the problem. But I don't want to throw in the towel when the millions of people who die and don't even consider cryonics because they think they are guaranteed a spot in Heaven don't realize that based on what is knowable and what is not knowable, religions shouldn't be guaranteeing what are only beliefs. BETH: My response: I agree with you 100%, "There is no more important battle for mankind." Our disagreement is only about how to WIN that battle. PIZER: You are my kind of people. BETH: I think a lawsuit critical of people's socially sanctioned belief system will turn them against cryonics because it subconsiously threatens the core concepts that define them as a person. In closing, just as Benjamin Franklin was the newly founded America's Ambassador to France, current cryonicists are ambassadors who may be the first introduction many people have to Cryonics. I want that introduction to be so positive, so inclusive and so encouraging that a deluge of people sign up. Lastly, if at this point you are still planning your suit, just please promise me that before you do it you will rent and watch "Miracle on 34th Street" (The original black and white version starring Natalie Wood) at least 6 times. PIZER: Remember that Franklin wanted cryonics.......... well sort of. He wanted to be preserved in a cask of Madera wine until science could revive him in the future. He was one of us. Pizer responds to Mike Perry PERRY SAID Do you think you could find a way to have this kind of debate without litigation? I hope you are looking into that, along with everything else. PIZER: Gee Mike, me and you, and lots of others have been looking for a debate with "them" for 30 years now, but I don't think we can get that debate into the world wide forum that we need fast enough to save all those people that you and I want to help. And I wonder if having that debate would cause as much backlash as the lawsuit? Ettinger has proposed a detailed type of debat on something in this area that might help. Maybe if we all pledged to that, and Alcor and CI worked out the details and sponsored it, that would be a first step in the right direction. I have pledged $500 bucks. What think others? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26537