X-Message-Number: 7482 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:24:32 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Uncaring Cryonicists Randy Smith wrote: > For some reason, this image about uncaring cryonicists seems to be out > there. Yes, because a cryonicist (such as myself) assumes he is so unique and wonderful, he is worthy of being preserved, and subsequently resusciated (presumably by other people who share his opinion of himself), long after everyone else has decomposed. Maybe this is hubris, or maybe it's simple desperation, but to the outside world I think it looks like hubris. > But this image persists. I propose we do something about it. I have > recently posted on Cryonet a message describing the workshops planned > by the Cryobiology society aimed at teaching cryobiologists how to > cryopreserve endangered (certain-to-be-extinct) plants. As I recall, > they plan to freeze them for the future, in order that the genetic > heritage of those species not be lost. Sounds very altruistic and > caring, and maybe even practical. An unfortunate example, Randy. I know the person who originated the idea of freezing plant/insect species, and I have reason to believe that his ulterior motive was to encourage the general idea of preserving life by freezing it, hence validating cryonics, hence increasing his own chances as a cryonics case. I am also reminded of another "pure scientist" who passed through New York a few years ago on his way to address a group of researchers at a very large corporation, in an effort to convince them to work on a certain kind of highly exotic and speculative computer research. Why? Because the person concerned believed that computation power of this order would be needed to analyze and reconstruct freezing damage on the cellular level, in particular in his own brain. Now, I don't see anything wrong with this. I would have done the same, if I'd been smart enough to think of it myself. I think the problem here is your assumed distinction between altruism and self-interest. Acts that are taken "selfishly" (for survival or profit) can in fact be highly beneficial to society. If I do something to increase my own chances (such as designing a new piece of cryonics equipment) clearly it may benefit many other people like me. I also believe that high-profile do-gooders (e.g. Mother Theresa) are really doing what they do because it makes THEM feel good, while at the same time they can actually do a lot of damage (e.g. by promoting a belief system that discourages birth control). So ... it's not a simple question, in my mind. I do think that many cryonicists are primarily focused on themselves, but I don't think this is necessarily bad, and speaking personally, I have received more psychological support, generosity, and encouragement from my cryonics friends than from others. I have also seen significant acts of kindness. Regarding your plan to promote the concept of freezing species: I have to ask, are you doing it for the species, or for cryonics? And if you want to promote cryonics ... now what could the reason possibly be?! --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7482