X-Message-Number: 5175 From: (Thomas Donaldson) Subject: Re: CryoNet #5161 - #5169 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:18:09 -0800 (PST) Hi again! 1. One of the particularly important issues which the survey reported by Stodolsky raises is that of just how actively those who think immortality will be bad for the human race will promote their opinions. So far we have not faced REALLY active opposition (think of what the anti-abortionists are doing, or what fanatical Islamists are doing). In fact, the response from such people has generally been rather weak. The strongest case of opposition of which I am yet aware is the decision of the Board of the Society for Cryobiology not to admit those who are openly cryonicists (yes, they are cutting their own throats). As for the problems Alcor had with Saul Kent's mother, these seem to have come (to me) more from officials who don't want ANYTHING new than from officials specifically targetting cryonics. Sure, it hurt just as much, but the reasons for something are always important if we want to think long-range. As for the LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION and its activities, yes, I think they are basically working on ways to get around existing regulations. For that I would expect opposition. That the regulations are immoral, short-sighted, and perhaps even unconstitutional doesn't matter here if we discuss causation. (The governments doing unconstitutional things probably outnumber those that don't!). I would be interested in Saul Kent's ideas here, particularly. But that is the way it currently looks to me. But one of the more interesting events is the generally flaccid, limp attitude of our opposition. Could they simply not be taking us seriously? (If so, we might face much more problems as we grow larger ... not that this will come soon, too bad). Or is their opposition simply mindless talk that doesn't really touch their real feelings (even if they deny them)? 2. In terms of evolution and biology, Dr. Stodolsky is quite correct. We human beings have a strong "groupiness" about us. Even individuals are not just individuals, but often form themselves as different from one group or another. But another point needs making, too. Evolution is not just something which happened 60,000 years ago and doesn't matter any longer. IT GOES ON ALL THE TIME. And in terms of social behavior, that social behavior seems to change more easily with evolution than, say, the shape of your ears and the number of fingers you have. It simply isn't valid to look at past human beings and decide on the basis of THEIR behavior that we should behave like them (if we DO behave like them, then our circumstances, which control our evolution, have not changed from theirs. But if we don't, no one can claim that we should). The error made here is just as bad, though less obvious, as someone who might claim that since our ancestors lived in trees and ate leaves and insects, then we should take up the same style of life. And one thing immortality may bring us is much more genuine individualism. The issue of immortality, of course, has only arisen because our medicine and knowledge of sanitation has produced a situation in which evolution, if anything, is pushing for us to live MUCH longer --- not that we should sit and wait for that. And so that change may well cause others, in our social behavior. And so it goes. Our ancestors would no doubt feel that because we were not covered with hair we had deteriorated very badly. (Note that it's been hard from bones to work out just when we lost most of our hair, so don't think this was hundreds of thousands of years ago). Was that bad for "the human race"? If we start thinking in terms of evolution and time, I don't really know what "the human race" is, to begin with. Best and long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5175