X-Message-Number: 28036
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:20:12 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #28031 - #28035
References: <>

> Message #28031
> From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> Subject: Re:  #28030 Regarding the 'Singularity'
> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:07:22 +0100
>
> I considered that John K Clark made some excellent points with regards to
> the distribution of wealth.

To me he fits the sterotype of the libertarian-cryonicist concerned
mostly with his personal accural of wealth and laissez-faire
economics, giving the impression that cryonics is only for rich Mr
Greedy's.

> I do wonder whether commercial capitalism is the best possible method of
> setting the sequence of scientific research.

What kind of commercial capitalism? Within what kind of political
system and governed how?

The lack of calrification on this point makes your following
ruminations too simplistic.

> For example, is it better to
> work on going to Mars as soon as possible or leave it a while for a better
> technological infrastructure to develop so it can be done more safely and
> cheaply?

That would depend on what "as soon as possible" might involve. In any
case, this seems to be a false dichotomy - working on getting to Mars
should develop the tech infrastructure quicker than just "leaving it a
while" would.

> Is it better to work on medical treatments that are so complex that
> they can only benefit a few people (even if given free by the government to
> people selected at random) at the expense of treatments that can benefit
> large numbers of people?

Again, another false dichotomy. It would be better to give more money
to both kinds of research and treatment, rather than say, blow it all
on an ideological war in the Middle East.

> Message #28034
> References: <>
> From: Peter Merel <>
> Subject: Singularity as Religion
> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:12:08 +1000

Excellent points Peter, I'm glad you joined in.

> The history of all human societies show booms and busts, and the
> present is unlikely to be any different. As for 1906, that was a time
> of enormous scientific and engineering innovation, vastly beyond our
> capabilities today. Tesla, Einstein and Bohr were just hitting their
> straps. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7616 demonstrates
> that, far from improving our problem solving abilities, our human
> ability to innovate has now sunk to pre-Renaissance levels.

So much for the "law of accelerating returns".

> To suggest otherwise is not a philosophy. It's a religion.

To be fair, cryonics also involves a certain amount of faith
equivalent to religious faith. We are all in the position of hoping
for medical and social advance which will enable our revival from
cryopreservation. We cannot be sure that such a future will manifest,
but we can look closely at historical developments and project into
the future. This is where the Singularity takes hold of some
imaginations. I'm not against this kind of futurological speculation,
until the speculations are taken as prophecy and hope becomes
certainty.

In any case, I'm happy to partake in these discussions with anyone who
agrees or disagrees.

regards to all,
Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28036