X-Message-Number: 28013
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 09:55:07 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #28009 - #28011
References: <>

> Message #28011
> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:14:25 -0400
> From: 
> References: <>
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #28005
>
> There is absolutely no solid evidence of mass extinctions.

Do you discount the scientific evidence of paleontology? This
discipline offers plenty of peer-reviewed, empirical evidence.

> No one has
> ever gone to the trouble of counting the number of species of life on
> earth.

How could you count them when we have not discovered them all? There
are good estimates that could satisfy you if you look.

>  The many doomsdayers who continue to foment alarmist scenarios
> keep dragging out numbers and "statistics" which, when traced to their
> sourcesturn out to be mere conjectures by other doomsday prophets.

Such statistics can be carefully calculated on the basis of trends. Or
do these statisticians go by the way of paleontologists?

> There is no basis for any of them.

Incorrect. Check out the UN reports. Money can be counted & measured,
so can births and deaths, so can natural resources, land-use, animals,
pollutants. Of course, this could all be bullshit - but could you
explain how?

> Humanity, in fact, is the
> first species to even care about the preservation of species

This is what makes us a moral animal. Of course, few people are
morally concerned with animal life, which is why we needless slaughter
them for burgers, or hunt them into extinction.

>and we are
> doing a lot to preserve many species which mother nature would
> otherwise dispose of.

Who is Mother Nature? Are human beings not a part of nature? We are
trying to preserve species that we have almost destroyed due to our
own myopia.

>I applaud this effort of preservation because it
> may be helpful for humanity in various ways,

It is also helpful to the animals who, BTW, feel pain and terror.

>but we should realize that
> we are counteracting mother nature, not following her.

Weird argument. I assume you are a cryonicist. Doesn't that mean you
are "counteracting" Cosmic Mommy by getting cryopreserved instead of
becoming a worm-dish?
Again, humans are of nature, our buildings are as natural as a spiders
web, our interventions in nature as ordinary as any ecological niche.
Whether our actions are wise or not is another story - perhaps
Earth-Mummy can help us answer it? Funny thing is, I can't hear her.

>I suspect that
> the underlying desire of the most vociferous extinction screamers is to
> stop progress in its tracks, shut down the factories and the
> laboratories, forget about science as the engine of progress, send us
> back to the good old days which never were,

Funny, a lot of people concerned about the increasing and looming
extinctions that we're reponsible for are using a lot of recent
technology and method to undo our destruction.

> forget about the third
> world billions who still live in misery largely because they cling to
> pre-scientific ideas,

Just because you care about other animals, it doesn't mean you don't
care for humans. The two are not mutually exclusive. You are setting
up silly strawmen.

>and forget about extending life because there are
> too many people here already.

Over-population is a real problem, and cryonicists must address it
rather than bury our heads in the freezer.

>  Such an ideology, in my opinion, is
> fundamentally anti-humanist and also very dangerous for cryonics.

Anyone who is anti-tech is dangerous for cryonics and the hi-tech
future most of us envision. I'd be more concerned about the people in
the Oval Office rather than a few luddite hippies.

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28013