X-Message-Number: 6582
Date: 22 Jul 96 01:51:01 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Prometheus: Reply to Bob Ettinger

Bob Ettinger writes:
>only asking now for TENTATIVE pledges, to become firm only on signing a
> contract

This is not quite correct. As I described it to John de Rivaz in private
communication:

     These pledges are binding (as much as a pledge ever is) in the sense
     that it would be unethical to pledge now and then say in January 1998:
     "I approve of all your scientific plans, your business plans and your
     prospectus, and I believe that the project has a good chance for
     success, and doing without the money I have pledged would not in any way
     endanger my health or longevity, but I still am not going to honor my
     pledge".

Furthermore, once the company is operating the pledges aren't pledges
anymore. They have become legally binding share purchase agreements, only
escapable by proof that the purchaser/signer has suffered such severe
financial disaster as to threaten his or her health or longevity (or that of
his or her family) if contracted share purchases were to continue, or by
finding someone else to purchase the shares.

>2. However, the thrust and import of his continued exhortations for support
>are really not fair--the implication that those who withhold support for
>Prometheus are not serious about saving/extending their lives. This is akin
>to a Democrat or Republican saying the other is treasonous because he has a
>different opinion. The evidence is NOT as clear-cut as Paul claims.

I don't believe that "fairness" has anything to do with it. It is a matter of
"judgment", "evaluation" and personal "values". And, yes, my evaluation of
the evidence is such that I *do* judge those who will not contribute, to be
"not serious about saving/extending their lives". I'm sorry if this offends
some people. When I decided to start the Prometheus Project, I also
understood that I was taking on the chance of losing many friends and
incurring the wrath and dislike of many people. My answer to that was: This
project is too important for *any* such thoughts to prevent me doing it. To
accomplish the scientific *proof* of "The Prospect of Immortality", I am
ready to lose every friend I have!

Bob's science questions will be left to another post, currently being
prepared, which will outline in general terms how "convincingly demonstrated
and scientifically proven" survival of mental faculties is to be
accomplished.


General:

In other posts Bob has raised many hypothetical problems which may be faced
by the project and he continues to do so again here. Bob, I really do have to
ask, "what is the point of all this?". Everyone here knows that every
endeavor which might ever be undertaken is not certain, and may fail or be
impractical because of any number of unforseen events. Yes, if we support and
invest in this project "the sky may fall" and wipe out all the money we have
put in. But if we *don't* do this project, I believe that even with present
day cryonics, there is a 99% chance that "the sky will fall" on every one of
us, when we are claimed by Death.


-- Paul --

!!!!! REVERSIBLE BRAIN CRYOPRESERVATION *CAN* BE ACHIEVED IN 10 YEARS !!!!!

Paul Wakfer  email:        Voice/Fax:     Pager:
US:     1220 E Washington St #24, Colton, CA 92324 909-481-4433 800-805-2870
Canada: 238 Davenport Rd #240, Toronto, ON M5R 1J6 416-968-6291 416-446-9461
(currently in Canada)


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6582