X-Message-Number: 957
From:	Ralph Merkle <>
Subject: Re:  Drexler A Deathist?
Date:	Mon, 6 Jul 1992 12:21:08 PDT

The right to live is widely recognized.  "Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness" are enshrined in our American tradition, and
life is enshrined in most philosophical traditions as a value to
be upheld, protected and defended.

There is no "right to immortality."  Indeed, there is much literature
condemning those who seek it.  Those who publicly proclaim that they
wish immortality are inviting attack from the many people in the world
who think it's unbridled hubris.

So do we want cryonics to be simply a method of saving lives, or do
we want to proclaim loudly that it is the path to immortality?

If the former, we are supported by all the philosophies of the earth and
by the laws of all countries.  If the latter, we are held up to derision
and contempt by most philosophies, and defended by no law.

According to the dictionary, death is "a permanent cessation of
all vital functions."  Clearly, if cryonics works, then such a
permanent cessation has not occurred; only a temporary and reversible
cessation has occurred, and that is not sufficient (according to the
standard definition) to let us say the person is dead.  Therefore,
if there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that cryonics
has some modest likelihood of success, then blocking a cryonic
suspension or interfering with the activities of a cryonics organization
endangers human life.  This is a very powerful defense of cryonics.

According to the dictionary, immortal is "not liable or subject to death."
At the moment,  we are most definitely mortal.  Indeed, it is difficult
to imagine the circumstances that would make us immortal in the standard
dictionary sense.  Safer, certainly.  Longer lived, certainly.  But
immortal?  Not subject to death?  Under any conditions?  No.

Should we, then, seek "immortality" when the standard definition of
"immortality" appears incompatible with what we know of the physical
laws that govern the universe?  Or should we seek simply to stay alive?

What's the difference?  If we seek to be immortal or we simply want to
stay alive, will we not act in the same way, regardless of our
goal?  We'll still be careful about crossing a street.  We'll
still avoid smoking.  We'll still go to the doctor with a broken leg,
and take antibiotics for an infection.  What's the difference?

But there is a difference.  If we simply want to stay alive, we can
secure the sympathy and support of the world.  Which will greatly
increase our chances of staying alive.

If we seek to be immortal, we will earn the scorn and derision of much of
the world.  Which will greatly decrease our chances of staying alive.

Words are important, and the words we use to describe our goals can
help or hinder us, save or doom us.  So let's think about our choice
of words, and what they mean not only to us but to the world at large.

And please, when someone asks you what cryonics is all about, tell them
it's about saving lives, not about immortality.

Trying to be immortal could kill us.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=957