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