X-Message-Number: 27680
From: "Jordan Sparks" <>
Subject: Ben's survey
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:10:24 -0800

Nice survey, Ben.  I'm the one who made the comment about the distinction
between infinite and very very long lifespans.  When many people, including
myself,  say infinite, we mean for all practical purposes unless there is a
huge disaster or unless the universe dies a cold death.  Because your
question did not qualify infinite with "practically" or "nearly", then the
question was asking me to speculate about the fate of the universe, which is
something that no human is properly equipped to do.  It is not preposterous
to think that science can produce nearly infinite lifespans in the range of
trillions of years.
 
The large spread of answers on question 16 is completely understandable.
People are not disagreeing about the amount of damage, but rather about the
amount of damage that they find acceptable.  Rephrasing it as one of the
following would have produced a much tighter spread:

1. What do you think is the maximum time a clinically dead (no heartbeat)
person could 
go without cooling or cardiopulmonary support after which they will suffer
some brain damage?  (here's your 6 minute to 3 hour group)
 
2. What do you think is the maximum time a clinically dead (no heartbeat)
person could 
go without cooling or cardiopulmonary support after which 50% of their
identity will be lost?  (here's the rest of the responses. Each person
plugged in their own % based on personal preferences, with the 'any remains
ever' group either accepting nearly 100% loss of identity or hoping for
better technology.  I think I answered 24 hours based on an estimated
50%-75% identity loss, although I would probably tolerate more.)
 
 
 
Jordan Sparks

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27680