X-Message-Number: 5726 From: (Nick Maclaren) Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension,uk.legal Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley) Date: 12 Feb 1996 11:32:23 GMT Message-ID: <4fn8g7$> References: <4flato$> <> In article <>, Garret Smyth <> writes: |> |> > There are a good many people (of whom I am one) who regard the modern |> > phobia about death as a symptom of a sick society. |> |> How could I prove to you that I don't have a phobia about death? ... By being prepared to face up to the possibility, and consider its advantages and disadvantages in a reasonably rational manner. From your postings, I doubt that you or John de Rivaz have one, though I cannot say the same about all of the other people on this thread :-) |> Please tell me, and this isn't a flippant question, just what is so good |> about being dead? Well, it can be the end of pain! But, more generally, the advantage of being dead is that you get out of the way to give your successors a chance to live their lives. And the latter is the basis for my next statement: |> > There are sound |> > social and ethical grounds for making human cryonics illegal... |> |> This is a bit provocative! Unlike other cryonicists, I shall try to remain |> calm and not make any anti lawyer statements (although those who know me |> will know how hard it is for me not to post a lawyer joke at this point!) |> |> Okay, what are the grounds for making cryonics illegal? (Remember - by |> your own definition that such grounds would be politics, not law.) Yes, quite. They are the same grounds for banning most recreational drugs, many activities (especially sexual) and so on. The grounds are mainly of the form that the social attitudes and behaviour associated with such things cause indirect harm to society. But please note that the activity of banning activities with little direct harm can itself be harmful! Remember that I said there are sound grounds for a ban, but I did NOT claim that those grounds currently justify a ban, which is the basis for my next statement: |> > , but my |> > own view is that this is not yet necessary. If, however, it starts to |> > affect (note: not just use) a significant proportion of society's |> > resources, then I shall change my mind. |> |> Cryonics itself will probably never take up a huge amount of the resources |> of the community and the society (however you define them) because most |> people won't want to sign up until they are convinced every aspect of the |> process is reliable. ... That is why I said 'affect' and not 'use'. My concerns about life support, cryonics etc. are more about the social effects than the resources consumed. There are dozens of other activities that are far more worthy of a ban on resource grounds. And, to bring the point full circle, the main social effect that I am concerned about is society's increasing death phobia. I have changed the followups line again, because nothing in this posting is relevant to uk.legal. Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England. Email: Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5726