X-Message-Number: 4664 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: Re: CryoNet #4657 - #4660 Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 22:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Hi again! Re: the sweep of history. One trouble with a belief that progress (you get to define what it is) will somehow happen regardless is that often people only look at the winners. To losers, it may not be progress at all. We belong to a civilization which has had a period of several generations of progress, including technological progress. Yet for various reasons it's easy to think of people and groups that might threaten that progress. Toynbee actually worked out a pattern by which civilizations rise and fall on the basis of how he saw history. We cannot simply assume that progress will continue. I am not a believer in Toynbee, but I do point out such historians as people who have done a long study of history and simply don't see that steady pattern of increase. I will also say that (even though it may take much longer than those who talk about a "discontinuity" would like) the spread of immortality may cause a state change in human society. Such a society may become much more resistant to the influences which bring societies down: war, lack of education, and many others. Even if a majority of people came to have a reasonable expectation of technological immortality we will see some changes. (In the sense that most past historians look at history, we would no longer be looking at the history of the human race but that of a single generation, stretched out over eons). But all of those things, including the continued scientific progress which we see around us, depends on the existence of people who will push for it financially, politically, and argumentatively (arguing against those who claim that such progress is illusory). In that sense, just as in the problems of revival and suspension, we will only see technology advance enough to revive us if we actively work for that RIGHT NOW. Not only that, but even technological progress does not imply knowledge of how to revive suspension patients. Even if we accept every claim about nanotechnology, revival requires someone who will actually devise the systems which will revive us. Yet we live among people all around us who say that such revival, and the immortality it implies, would be BAD. Look at British Columbia for a breath of that attitude. Not only that, but a lot of current interest in nanotechnology comes from an interest in computing, not an interest in medicine. Computers alone, no matter how tiny, would not be enough to revive us. Somehow they must act on us, and do so in a way which leads to our revival --- both of which give rise to many many questions. Re: the college of cardinals I actually suggested at one time that looking at the Roman Catholic Church may give us some ideas about how to form a longlasting organization. I very much did not mean that we should simply imitate them. But Alcor does have a problem with the fact that its leaders have very little official ties to its members. CI, as it grows, may find itself with a similar problem. One suggestion I made in the past was that (say) 5 years membership might be ONE of the prerequisites for a voice in Alcor's meetings (membership in the College of Cardinals, so to speak). Some other kinds of contribution might be required also, but it's important that any such criterion be clear and objective: it won't keep us together if it is something so vague as a belief by a few members that someone deserves a voice because of their previous contributions. If unanimous or near-unanimous belief by all those members who had a voice in the society were required, that might work, but only if the group of members is not small and contains already lots of different views. As for families, one major problem with families is that they only really work with small groups. Best and long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4664