X-Message-Number: 10493 From: "Scott Badger" <> Subject: Re: Cryonicism. Not! Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:23:14 -0500 I'll refrain from addressing each of George Smith's comments since he admitted that many of his points were made _for the sake of argument_. >But why? If it happens, what is there to protest? I mean, if the successful spread of cryonics >came about in exchange for everyone wearing purple hats or waving feathers on alternate >Tuesdays, so what? I feel many of us could learn to cope with the embarrassment of just about >anything after about five or six hundred years. If wearing a purple hat was the *only* way I could be preserved, then I suppose that's what I'd do to survive. But I think it would be wise to resist any attempts to ritualize cryonics beyond the currently required legal rites. >I am not an expert on the history of Scientology but this might not be such a bad example to >consider. When L. Ron Hubbard's "mental health clinics" were being legally banned in (I recall >it was) New Jersey, Mr. Hubbard end-ran the legalalities by immediately closing his "Dianetics" >clinics and opening his "Church of Scientology". Under this new name, he continued business as >usual ...very successfully I understand. Mr. Hubbad planned ahead for just such an event. >Shouldn't we? Chris Fideli stated that "..legally, a claim of religious exemption might carry some added weight, but would likely not give us drastically more constitutional protection then we already have." In addition, I shudder at the thought of using L. Ron Hubbard as a positive model for anything, except perhaps as a sci-fi author. It would be interesting, though, to hear what contingency plans, if any, are in place to safeguard against regulatory actions imposed by government agencies. >>But we CANNOT disguise cryonics as a religion. Religions make >>promises...cryonics does not. > >That may be the precise reason it has grown so slowly. If that's the case, oh well. It doesn't justify giving prospective members promises or false hopes. >Religions have a central >>figure/savior/messiah...cryonics does not. > >We have a few "central figures" in the cryonics movement but even these are not necessary for a >religion. Remember, all religions were invented somewhere by somebody. People like relgions. >Notice how many there are? It's not a coincidence. Religious organizations are ubiquitous for a number of reasons. IMO, most of those reasons are ultimately associated with death anxiety - those who suffer from it and those who take advantage of those who suffer from it. I personally see religious devotion as an irrational approach to coping with this anxiety, while I see cryonics as a rational approach. By this, I do not mean to imply that people should turn away from their religions. It's just my opinion. There is no inherent incompatibility between cryonics and most western religions, and I don't think we should create such an incompatibility. Cryonics should not attempt to assimilate members on the basis of religious beliefs, but should strive instead to accomodate those beliefs. It's just a bad idea to give people the impression that they may have to choose between their religion and cryonics. (more snipping) >We must overcome any anti-religious bias regarding the future >events which will come to cryonics from a world which is dominated >by deeply religious beliefs. That's just the way it is. > >Religion is something people do. Until this moment, it has dominated the whole of human society >and history. It even deeply influences the mental models modern scientists create to try and >develop new paradigms. (The Big Bang certainly came from Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 1, for >example). Do you honestly think it won't happen in this area which plays footsy with such >concepts as death, transcendence, and the future of mankind? I'm still a little unclear about your meaning. Are you suggesting that religious organizations will condemn cryonics once it becomes more popular unless cryonics itself turns into a religion? It's my guess that cryonics will eventually become an accepted medical procedure much like CPR eventually became accepted. Religious organizations didn't go bonkers when CPR was developed. It will be made very clear by the medical community that cryonics is not about _raising the dead_. It's not cryopreservation that religions will object to. They will eventually recognize it as a life-saving procedure. It's the prospect and ramifications of anti-senescence technologies that will be most upsetting for religious leaders. That's when they'll start worrying about losing their turf. >And as for ethics, I leave you with just one thought: Would you "con" someone to save their >life? After considerable relflection, my answer is "No." Your life belongs to you and if you choose to believe that a better world exists beyond death and you'd rather be there sooner than later, then that's your choice. Maybe it's the right choice. Who knows? But if you're _of sound mind_ then you have the ability and the right to weigh the arguments for and against. Using mistruths to bias your decision would be the unethical action. Best regards, Scott Badger Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10493