X-Message-Number: 7035 From: (Randy) Subject: Cryocare Report July 1996; "Loss" Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:22:54 GMT Just finished reading the latest edition of Cryocare Report. The article "Loss," by Charles Platt was, IMO, one of the best pieces of pro-cryonics writing I've ever seen, and, in fact, excellent writing period. One of Platt's major themes is that a person is worth at least as much as a "great" work of art, or any other inanimate object, and therefore preservation of a human life warrants at least as great an expenditure as, say, preserving the Mona Lisa. An argument against this would be that the Mona Lisa is unique, and therefore worthy of the millions spend to preserve and safeguard it. But how unique is *any* painting compared to the uniqueness of any one human compared to another? I would argue that any halfway decent person is a work of art far more unique and far more beautiful than any scrap of canvas covered with paint, and therefore worthy of preservation by any means available, even freezing in liquid nitrogen. It would seem that Western Civ is coming around to the pro-cryonics viewpoint. Haven't we seen human life *increase* in value in developed countries in the last century? Do we still enslave? Do we still hang the bad guys in public? When is the last time you saw someone "drawn and quartered " in the town square? I would argue that even the price increases in healthcare show that we value human life more these days. The advent of modern science and the corresponding devaluation of religion as a means of avoiding facing up to impending death may also have played a major role increasing the value of human life, at least in developed western nations. In "Loss," Platt tells the story of his father's death and how that loss reaffirms his committment to cryonics. This edition of Cryocare Report is not yet available at the CryoCare website at www.cryocare.org/cryocare, but it will probably show up there in the near future. I highly recommend it. Randy Smith Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7035