X-Message-Number: 5165 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: Re: CryoNet #5154 - #5160 Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 10:20:32 -0800 (PST) Hi! Dr. Stodolsky's latest posting, though it presents some unhappy information in detail, stands out as one of his most helpful for a long time. It is important that we understand just what we're up against in the public mind. Several further points: yes, the overpopulation issue is meaningless as an argument against immortality. So long as population increases exponentially, there will be a problem, regardless of whether people grow old and die. One way or another, every society on Earth will have to find some way to limit the total number of new people it produces per year. This HAS happened to past societies, too: the Polynesians, for instance, customarily would gather together the elders of the village whenever a new child was born, to decide whether or not to allow it to live (based on whether or not it could be supported, of course). If the elders decided NO, the infant was taken away from its mother and left to die (and no doubt be eaten) on rocks far from the village. (Look at WE, THE TIKOPIA, by Raymond Firth). Our advance has not been that we can control births. It is that we can control them with means with less offend our moral sensibilities. There is a second issue, too. There is no way in which immortalism will not be revolutionary and upset many common ideas. I personally think this is something we should be frank and up front about, though I know others would disagree. One point which we CAN make, of course, is that in practical terms the changes we urge will not really become obvious for a long time. It takes 100 years to produce a 200 year old man or woman, at a minimum ... probably more. And the impact of lots of 200 year old people won't really hit until even longer in the future. Religions or ideas which base themselves, in the popular mind at least, upon human mortality are going to have to be modified or disappear. As for "conservatism" and refusal to adopt new ideas (ironic to hear such a complaint from people who don't like anti-aging!) so far as they are biological they can obviously be dealt with. So far as they depend on ideas, we can make an argument that I think is very strong. Much refusal to adopt new ideas may come not from the distance the refuser has from his/her youth but the nearness of that person's death. If you will remain young forever, you can adapt, change your career, do many things when changes happen. As you grow older, doing that gets harder. That is why medical schools are reluctant to accept older people: it isn't just whether or not they will live long enough to complete the course, but whether they will be able, afterwards, to do very much with their new knowledge. Not only that, but embarking on 4 years of education isn't free in terms of money: someone of 60, concerned that he or she has enough to survive on when they become too old to work, may not choose to take such a risk. What if it doesn't work out, and the demand for califragilists which looked so good when they started is gone by the time they finish? They would have lost everything. (I personally think this is the strongest reason why many older people become conservative). Best, and long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5165