X-Message-Number: 5595
From: 
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 18:33:25 -0500
Subject: counterpoint

Brad Templeton made a couple of remarks with which I would take mild issue:

a) He says there might be risk of bad outcomes to the first few
"experimental" revivals. This is a point of some practical importance in
recruitment, and his view is not correct. 
First, no attempt will be made to revive anyone until prior work with
mammals, as well as mathematical models, assure success to many decimal
places . As a very rough parallel, no astronaut was launched until prior
automated tests gave high assurance of success.

Second, the revival will take place in stages, with consciousness the last
stage, and careful analysis preceding and accompanying each successive stage.
The revival technicians will KNOW what you are feeling, and will not allow a
bad scenario to develop.

Third, if somehow a revival is botched, and then-current technology can't fix
it, they can always put you back in the cryostat until your needs can be met.

b) Mr. Templeton says it is "not irrational" for people to question cryonics
on ethical grounds concerning social consequences etc., or generally on
"altruistic" grounds. But it IS irrational.  

On one level--as recognized for millennia by many philosophers--it should be
obvious that the only real question, ever, is what is good for YOU. (Again, I
assume certain reasonable postulates about the nature of reality.) But
"feel-good" and "self interest" have so many problems associated with them
that repudiation of them, as appropriate motivating principles, is now nearly
universal. This will change only slowly, but at least some of the people on
this list ought to understand that there is no such THING as "altruism" in
any proper sense. *What you want is what YOU want.* 

The primary questions of philosophy are how to determine what you OUGHT to
want, and how best to advance your interests. I'm still working on a long
exposition of what this means and how to approach it.

As a practical tactic in cryonics recruiting, of course, we can't say any
such thing, or we can't emphasize it. But we can reiterate, in many ways,
that "It's hard to have fun when your'e dead."  We can also emphasize saving
the recruit's family. And we can truthfully emphasize many probable salutary
effects of immortalism, including the necessity of observing the Golden Rule
and good citizenship when you anticipate a long and rich life; there will be
no more acts of desperation, and few lapses of responsible behavior,  in a
future when all wrongs (including birth afflictions) can potentially be
righted and everyone can pursue his heart's desire. [Yes, it's easy to
imagine exceptions or counter-examples, but I think the principle is valid.
If we can survive the Singularity,  we should have it made.]

It is also easy to use reductio-ad-absurdum on this point. Isaac Asimov had a
part in publication of THE PROSPECT OF IMMORTALITY, pronouncing it
scientifically kosher when Doubleday submitted it to him for evaluation. But
he became an opponent of cryonics and immortalism on ethical grounds,
including the freezing of old farts into positions of power (in itself an
absurd simplification and lack of imagination). As an ultimate absurdity, he
finally wrote that it is not important whether you or I survive, or even the
human race--only life and intelligence in the abstract. As I have said, he
would (his words imply) be satisfied to know that some day on a planet of
Antares a race of giant spiders (or perhaps microscopic ones) would find a
way to spin more beautiful webs. Moravec also belongs to this school; if his
"mind children" can do neat things, he doesn't care what happens to him or
his friends. This is basically the essence of Communist and similar
orientations--all that matters is the eternal State (Nation, Church, Party,
Tribe, Ideology, Race, Species, what have you; anything except the
individual).

Recruitment is difficult and expensive. Steve Bridge says it took a year of
discussion before Mike Darwin convinced him that neuro preservation is not
outlandish or repulsive; for many others it would take 20 years or more. Even
to accept cryonics without the neuro angle is obviously near or beyond the
boundary of most people's present capability. Thirty years ago a woman on a
TV program told me not to be surprised if it took 20 years for cryonics to
really catch on; I thought this was ridiculously pessimistic. But psychology
is complex and often turns on delicate pivots, and things could change in a
hurry. Maybe Dr. Visser's rat hearts will help. Meanwhile, those who are
willing and able should continue to be patient and generous in private
contacts.

I've maundered on again and maybe wasted some time, but I'll post this
anyway. 

Robert Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5595